Was Huntsman Romney’s wingman?

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”

Jon Huntsman’s exact words

I’m not going to quote Jon Huntsman’s entire I’m-running-for-President speech but here’s a link:

http://jon2012.com/campaign/Jun-21-2011/Jon-Huntsman-Announcement-Transcript

What I am going to do is comment on selected portions of that speech. Some of my comments are within brackets. For other comments: the first word is highlighted in yellow; the last, in blue.

Selections from

Huntsman’s speech with Searle’s comments

I've lived overseas four times, where the view of America from 10,000 miles away is a picture of liberty [Patriot Act], opportunity [even for undocumented workers] and justice [if you can afford it]. People secure in their rights [those the Supreme Court and the police still allow us to enjoy] and in love with their liberty. People who have done more good for more people than any other nation on earth.

That last sentence might say more about what’s bad about those other nations than it does concerning what’s good about ours. Besides that, just ask the descendants of slaves and American Indians for their take of this “more good” claim.

And today, I'm a candidate for the office of President of the United States of America. [Me, too!]

You see today Americans are experiencing, through no fault of their own, something that is totally alien to them - a sense that the deck is stacked against them by forces totally beyond their control. No matter how hard they work, save, and plan, the opportunities are not there for them as that were present for previous generations.

…“through no fault of their own?” – the fault is exactly our own, and nobody else’s, for refusing to rein in our own government…

”forces totally beyond their control?” – Jon’s right about that – our government has proven to be a force beyond our control, due in large part to our own complacency.

And yet Jon writes (below), “We have…our abiding belief in personal responsibility.” Which is it, Jon? Talk about talking out of both sides of one’s mouth!

Perhaps, saddest of all, we have lost faith in ourselves.

Not as much as we’ve resigned ourselves to perish at the hands of a Two Party System, which is in desperate need of overthrowing.

For the first time in history, we are passing down to the next generation a country that is less powerful, less compassionate, less competitive and less confident than the one we got.

“less powerful?” – We won the Cold War and now we’re less powerful? Maybe Jon’s referring to a power we never had – the ability to police the entire world and micromanage to our hearts’ content.

“less compassionate?” – I would love to hear a reporter ask Jon what he meant by that. If we’ve become a mean-spirited, less-empathetic people, I’d love to hear Jon’s take on how that came to pass.

We have the power, we have the means, we have the character to astonish the world again by making from adversity a new and better country…

Where did that “adversity” come from, Jon? From speculators engaging in Bubble Economics, whom we refused to regulate?

We have our freedom [subject to the parameters of virtual class warfare], we have rule of law [subject to the whims of our various institutional enforcers], the longest surviving Constitution [which has outlived its usefulness and is in dire need of replacement], our abiding belief in personal responsibility [another way of saying, “Don’t expect government to help you unless you’re big enough to qualify for a bailout”].

We have freedom of speech [not much use unless you have money for access to mass media], religion [no we don’t – Jon’s fellow Mormons could tell you how they had to give up their religiously-sanctioned practice of polygamy in order to join the union], and press [which is thoroughly dominated, along with all major media, by corporations].

And we are the most productive society on earth [we also produce a lot of crap, pollution, and weapons to sell to a wide variety of war lords].

We have…the most…selfless armed forces.

The Taliban and Colonel Gadhafi’s troops, fighting against overwhelming odds, must surely be considered “selfless” as well – and they don’t get compensated nearly as well as our own forces.

What we now need is leadership that trusts in our strength. Leadership that doesn't promise Washington has all of the solutions to our problems, but rather looks to local solutions from our cities, towns and states.

While it’s true Washington doesn’t have “all of the solutions,” our local entities are just as corrupt with Two Party politics. The real solution is to oust all Dem/Pubs from DC and get a really independent Congress in place. In fact, the locals should do that as well. Without an independent legislature, it won’t matter who becomes our next President.

Leadership that knows we need more than hope, leadership that knows we need answers. [Ditto my comment above.]

We must make hard decisions that are necessary to avert disaster.

Only Independents can make those decisions – since they wouldn’t be shackled to the whims of the party bosses or of the lobbyists who lay daily siege to their offices.

Our country will fall behind the productivity of other countries. Our influence in the world will wane [That’s alright with me and will be better for all of us…not to mention a lot cheaper]. Our security will grow ever more precarious [if we keep insisting on finding newer and more creative reasons for going to war]. And the 21st Century will then be known as the end of the American Century. [Opposed as I am to nationalism, I would welcome the beginning of a truly International Century.]

We must make broad and bold changes to our tax code and regulatory policies [these changes can’t happen with Dem/Pubs in charge – they’ll skew any reform package they cobble together; only independents can succeed]; seize the lost opportunity of energy independence [after various administrations chose to lose those opportunities in order to follow their own hidden agendas] and reestablish what it means to be a teacher in society [Jon, do you mean like “school teacher” – What do you think it means to be a teacher in society compared to being a teacher in a school?]

Now, we did many of these things in the great state of Utah when I was governor [Face it, Jon, the US has a lot more challenges than ever did the great state of Utah].

You see, we proved that government doesn't have to choose between fiscal responsibility and economic growth [uh, huh…maybe that’s because Utah doesn’t have to spend to fight the terrorists, deal with minorities, or rehab an aging infrastructure].

And let us not forget that we are a nation at war.

The Global War on Terror has to rank as one of the biggest scams of all time. When do we bring the troops home, Jon?

We're at war, ladies and gentlemen, and we must manage the end of these conflicts [how about “managing” by just pulling out immediately, without a lot of fanfare?] without repeating past mistakes that made our engagement longer [“longer?” – that choice was always ours to make and those were not really “mistakes” at all] and our sacrifices greater than they should have been [we didn’t have to sacrifice anything at all except our sense of self-righteousness].

… we believe the best long- term national security strategy is rebuilding our core here at home. [No, it’s not. It’s best achieved by ceasing our role as policeman of the world.]

And I respect the President of the United States.

I don’t…Barack Obama was a callous fraud who blatantly lied to the American people – from Day One and well before.

We are a resourceful, ingenious, determined, problem solving people.

So are the Chinese, but I think the real problem to be solved is, how much should be our share of the world’s pie? Oh, and how will we (or our elites) rein in the temptation to take more than that share?

This is the hour when we choose our future.

I hope ethical and compassionate concerns help shape those choices.

I'm Jon Huntsman, and I'm running for President of the United States.

I am Steven Searle, and I would never dream of offering such a lame speech (as Jon’s) when announcing my own candidacy. In fact, I offer no speech at all – just my innovative written contract. Americans are tired of baseless promises, Jon. If you want to convince us, put it in writing – as I have.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Join the New American Revolution. Declare your independence by voting for independents.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Jon Huntsman Jr. for President??

I can only offer a few comments concerning Jon Huntsman, recently declared candidate for US President. Before proceeding, I make due note of the fact that Jon has never written any books or (as far as I can determine) any articles That’s pretty remarkable considering that every aspiring candidate seems to have some traceable body of writings under his belt. But not so Jon Huntsman.


From Jon’s website:

I didn’t see much on Jon’s website – at http://jon2012.com/ . But I did pick up on this much:

QUOTE: “For once we could have a president who actually knows the world.”

This quote wasn’t a slip of the tongue made by someone being interviewed by a reporter. This was a blurb appearing prominently on Jon’s campaign website. Huntsman is claiming he “actually knows the world” but none of our former presidents did. Tom Jefferson? FDR? Reagan?

It would have been quite a boast if he had merely written: “For once we could have a president who knows the world better than any previous president.” But, no, he had gone much farther.

What kind of man would make such a blatantly false claim? Unless…maybe Jon “knows” the world in a special way only knowable to Mormons. This quote might not be a gross overstatement as much as it could be Huntsman’s personal belief that only a Mormon could really “know” the world. To a triumphally religious person, the world is a place that cannot be meaningfully known if its spiritual aspect or connection to God doesn’t match one’s own.

And it cannot be known at all without some kind of connection to God.

Unfortunately, you will never hear a mainstream media man ask Huntsman what he meant by this odd assertion. Our superficial interviewers, if they think of these words at all, will conclude Jon is either exaggerating or must surely be trying to contrast himself only with Obama. Even though that’s not what he said.

Maybe, though, there are other ways Huntsman’s thoughts don’t translate well into written or spoken form. For instance, consider this link to his website (click on the vid clip to hear the first 17 seconds of his speech, which I’ll quote after this link):

http://jon2012.com/htv/Jun-22-2011/Daily-Video-62211?autoplay=0

QUOTE: “We must reignite the powerful job creating engine of our economy. The industry, innovation, reliability, and trailblazing genius of Americans and their enterprises and restore confidence in our people.”

That second sentence* is a fragment. I don’t know what he was thinking but whatever it was didn’t find a home in a grammatically proper sentence. A lingual psychologist would find how he spoke that second sentence to be very revealing. Especially interesting is his “phrasing” – that is, how his voice emphasizes (or minimizes) certain words. This is only 17-seconds long, but I think it speaks volumes of this man. These 17-seconds are the tip of an iceberg worthy of exploration by a qualified analyst.

Of course, I would like to know how Jon proposes that “we…reignite the powerful job creating engine of our economy.” I suppose he’ll get around to issuing a position paper someday. If he does, I for one will be ready to tear into it, as I did during the last election when I ran against Obama, Clinton, and McCain.

Also, from Jon’s website: QUOTE: “Jon Jr. drops out of high school his senior year to play keyboards in his band, ‘Wizard.’ That fall, priorities adjusted, Jon begins taking classes at the University of Utah. After proving himself academically, he enrolls as a full-time student.”

The highlighting is mine and makes this point: Why does Jon depersonalize and distance himself with this choice of wording? Apparently, Jon has a love of music. Why disrespect that? His choice of wording makes it sound like his dad read him the riot act concluding with, “I hope you’ve got your head on straight now.”

A warmer variation of Jon’s quote would have read: “Jon Jr. drops out of high school his senior year to play keyboards in his beloved band, ‘Wizard.’ That fall, Jon begins taking classes at the University of Utah to broaden his horizons while trying to explore future directions for his life.”

Writing as he did – “That fall, priorities adjusted” – sounds pretty impersonal and detached to me.

So why is Jon running for President?

I read one bit of speculation about why young Mormon men are encouraged to do missionary work. Jon Huntsman ended up in a place (Taiwan) where his proselytizing was going to be daunting to say the least. So why encourage this Mission Impossible? The purpose is not to win converts but to socialize these young men who are quite insulated from contact with non-Mormons.

So let’s extend the logic of this speculation a bit. Maybe Jon Huntsman isn’t running for President with any serious thought of winning. Maybe this time, instead of learning socializing skills, he’s trying to win converts for his faith in a way far more effective than his old, but surely frustrating, approach of collaring people on the street.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Unlike Jon Huntsman, I am not at all secretive or lacking in program details.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

   * CORRECTION (6-24-11): There was no second sentence. I found this text copy on Jon’s website which “sentences” his words this way:

QUOTE:

We must reignite the powerful job creating engine of our economy - the industry, innovation, reliability, and trailblazing genius of Americans and their enterprises -- and restore confidence in our people.

:UNQUOTE.

After listening once again to Jon as he’d spoken these words, I can see how I’d thought he’d spoken two sentences instead of one. However, I stand by my main point which was: “A lingual psychologist would find how he spoke…to be very revealing.”

# # #