HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » AP story points to Huntsm...

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:03 AM

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

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

102 replies, 16996 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 102 replies Author Time Post
Reply AP story points to Huntsman Jr. as Secretary of State candidate (Original post)
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 OP
yardwork Nov 2012 #1
cyclezealot Nov 2012 #11
yardwork Nov 2012 #20
cyclezealot Nov 2012 #37
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #49
yardwork Nov 2012 #52
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #57
yardwork Nov 2012 #62
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #63
ChillZilla Nov 2012 #98
yardwork Nov 2012 #101
BigDemVoter Nov 2012 #69
BigDemVoter Nov 2012 #67
Enrique Nov 2012 #79
FarPoint Nov 2012 #2
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #4
TomCADem Nov 2012 #9
harmonicon Nov 2012 #73
Cal33 Nov 2012 #96
cyclezealot Nov 2012 #13
Spider Jerusalem Nov 2012 #71
liberalmuse Nov 2012 #3
FarPoint Nov 2012 #5
SoapBox Nov 2012 #41
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #50
kurt_cagle Nov 2012 #6
global1 Nov 2012 #8
iandhr Nov 2012 #12
Exultant Democracy Nov 2012 #43
demwing Nov 2012 #16
Ed Suspicious Nov 2012 #22
demwing Nov 2012 #34
SemperEadem Nov 2012 #15
JustAnotherGen Nov 2012 #18
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #38
sendero Nov 2012 #32
enough Nov 2012 #7
John2 Nov 2012 #10
AnnaLee Nov 2012 #14
madrchsod Nov 2012 #17
MessiahRp Nov 2012 #19
iandhr Nov 2012 #21
Ed Suspicious Nov 2012 #23
TomCADem Nov 2012 #24
wisteria Nov 2012 #70
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Nov 2012 #95
karynnj Nov 2012 #47
wisteria Nov 2012 #72
karynnj Nov 2012 #80
graywarrior Nov 2012 #58
MessiahRp Nov 2012 #64
wisteria Nov 2012 #68
wisteria Nov 2012 #66
politicasista Nov 2012 #82
zonkers Nov 2012 #25
GeorgeGist Nov 2012 #26
MotherPetrie Nov 2012 #27
byeya Nov 2012 #28
TwilightGardener Nov 2012 #29
Kelvin Mace Nov 2012 #30
Swede Atlanta Nov 2012 #31
Paulie Nov 2012 #33
Blue_Tires Nov 2012 #35
harmonicon Nov 2012 #75
Blue_Tires Nov 2012 #78
harmonicon Nov 2012 #85
Firebirds01 Nov 2012 #90
SDjack Nov 2012 #36
nolabear Nov 2012 #39
Ashened Nov 2012 #40
justiceischeap Nov 2012 #45
harmonicon Nov 2012 #76
Ashened Nov 2012 #86
iamthebandfanman Nov 2012 #42
valerief Nov 2012 #44
forestpath Nov 2012 #53
appacom Nov 2012 #46
The Second Stone Nov 2012 #48
KamaAina Nov 2012 #51
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #54
TwilightGardener Nov 2012 #60
NYC Liberal Nov 2012 #74
Daniel537 Nov 2012 #55
Freddie Stubbs Nov 2012 #94
matt819 Nov 2012 #56
Arkana Nov 2012 #59
harmonicon Nov 2012 #77
maq-az Nov 2012 #61
wisteria Nov 2012 #65
Cass Nov 2012 #81
JI7 Nov 2012 #83
cire41 Nov 2012 #88
goclark Nov 2012 #97
Myrina Nov 2012 #102
wordpix Nov 2012 #84
TheDonkey Nov 2012 #87
KewlKat Nov 2012 #89
Hugabear Nov 2012 #91
kurt_cagle Nov 2012 #92
Beacool Nov 2012 #93
SayitAintSo Nov 2012 #99
AzDar Nov 2012 #100

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:09 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:32 AM

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

was a Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyclezealot (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:42 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #20)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:28 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #20)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:48 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #49)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:09 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #52)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:44 PM

57. Okay ...

Partisanship over competence ... gottcha.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #57)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:12 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #62)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:24 PM

63. By what measure?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #52)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 11:01 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChillZilla (Reply #98)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 11:07 AM

101. LOL!

That's not even a good try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyclezealot (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 05:45 PM

69. Doesn't mean Obama should do it

Was against it then and am against it now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 05:45 PM

67. Agree with you one million %

NO Repukes!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 06:10 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:10 AM

2. I say no.....

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

Huntsman already identified a desire to be President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:12 AM

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

Serving as SoS would kill his GOP credentials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:29 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 05:56 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:24 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:33 AM

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. ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 05:50 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:10 AM

3. No...

Let's get a good liberal in there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalmuse (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:16 AM

5. Exactly...

We need to be smart for 2014 and 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:59 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:52 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:23 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kurt_cagle (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:28 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:33 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iandhr (Reply #12)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 12:09 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:38 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #16)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:48 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #22)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:14 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kurt_cagle (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:35 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SemperEadem (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:40 AM

18. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SemperEadem (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 11:32 AM

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.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kurt_cagle (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:38 AM

32. IMHO..

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:23 AM

7. Why? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:31 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:34 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:38 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:41 AM

19. I think clearly John Kerry deserves this job.

Last edited Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:37 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MessiahRp (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:47 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iandhr (Reply #21)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:50 AM

23. exactly. that would stink.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iandhr (Reply #21)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:50 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TomCADem (Reply #24)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 05:46 PM

70. Why? He lost by a large margin.

I don't follow the reasoning behind this speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wisteria (Reply #70)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:04 AM

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

Sadly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iandhr (Reply #21)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:08 PM

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.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #47)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 05:51 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink