Huntsman to drop. Expected to endorse Romney

From CNN

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman will withdraw from the Republican presidential race Monday and endorse front-runner Mitt Romney, according to a senior official with the Huntsman campaign.

Huntsman is expected to announce his decision to drop out at an event at 11 a.m. in Myrtle Beach.

While the more moderate Huntsman hasn't had much support in the polls in conservative South Carolina -- which holds its primary this coming Saturday -- his decision to pull out could provide a critical extra cushion of votes for Romney, who is facing stiff conservative competition there from Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

Romney's campaign -- already bolstered by a huge campaign war chest and a wave of momentum after wins in Iowa and New Hampshire -- is hoping for a possible knockout blow if the former Massachusetts governor finishes first in the Palmetto State. South Carolina has picked the winner of every GOP presidential nomination fight since 1980.

"Governor Huntsman did not want to stand in the way of the candidate best prepared to beat Barack Obama and turn our economy around. That's Mitt Romney," the official said.

Despite his rep, I think Huntsman was actually to the right of Romney, at least the Romney who actually was governor. He's also more consistent. I think what hurt Hunstman was three things. The biggest one was the ambassador job. That shouldn't have hurt him, but it did. It was a minor admin job which he was certainly qualified to hold. Another was Global warming. That was my major problem with Huntsman. He supported cap and trade, at least on the state level. The other one was his well known support for gay civil unions. I mildly oppose that preferring government to stay out of marriage altogether. That's not a dealbreaking issue for me.

I also he spent too much, but the same problems I had with Huntsman also applied to Romney, and even Newt to a degree. Because of those things, Huntsman never gained traction, in any of the states. A lot of the folks that would support him supported Romney instead. Romney was their guy last time.

I don't think this matters much for South Carolina, but it does help Romney long term. Many of the Huntsman supporters will probably support Romney now. Most of the "anyone but Romney" vote would have supported someone besides Huntsman anyway. This could give Romney a 2-3% bump in the states, but that might be all he needs. The big winner today with this announcement is Romney.

Who is the actual RINO? (2012 primaries)

I have a hit or miss view when it comes to Joe Scarbrough. Sometimes he gets it dead on and sometimes he is way off. This one here is quite good.

From Politico

The insult du jour for Republican candidates this election cycle is being labeled a RINO, a Republican in Name Only. Unfortunately, the insult has been so overused lately it’s been rendered meaningless. The insult is even emptier because it is so detached from actual statements, campaign promises and voting records.

A candidate like Newt Gingrich can get away with supporting the biggest socialist scheme in American government over the past 30 years because he says nasty things about the press and calls Barack Obama a Marxist. Jon Huntsman, on the other hand, can have a stellar conservative record as Utah’s governor, be anti-abortion and adored by the NRA. But if he refuses to spit out angry screeds against Obama, he’s dismissed as a RINO, the facts be damned.

So as a public service to POLITICO readers, I, your humble conservative servant, have put together a “Who is the Real RINO?” test. based on voting records, candidate quotes and facts! (Shocking, I know.)

Good luck!

1. Who said, “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose. I am not going to change pro-choice laws in any way”?

A. Mitt Romney

C. Newt Gingrich

C. Jon Huntsman

I got all but two of them right. Politico didn't line up page two properly, so one of the answered I picked Newt was Mitt. I also got the Rockefeller State Chair wrong.

It's biased, heavily towards Huntsman. However Newt is hit or miss, and we all know how Romney panders to every audience. Huntsman isn't AS BAD as his reputation which he got by taking a job as ambassador. That doesn't mean he's perfect. He's on board the global warming bandwagon and supported Cap and Trade in Utah which is an automatic two strikes against him. He spent too much as governor, although he did cut taxes. (Growth helped him in Utah) He supports civil unions for gays which I mildly oppose (tax money paying for it), but really don't have strong opinions about one way or the other on that issue. Many do. I do think he's the most electable in the general election however, and have said that since the beginning. I'm worried he's a Bush Republican, but we'll see.

Back in September, I was on board the Perry camp. It was an "anybody but Romney" move. I also didn't expect to see a collapse and implosion after the immigration comments and gaffes in debates over and over again. What I was looking for was the best alternative to Romney who can beat Obama. That's where my vote is going to go. Anybody but Romney who can beat Obama. Maybe Perry can recover. We'll see.

I'm not the only one in that boat. Especially post Obamacare/Romneycare, Romney, despite his money, organization, and an attempted coronation by the political class, so far can not bust through the ceiling. A lot of candidates are jockeying for position in this horse race, but Romney has in only one poll in November broke 30%. He did that once in October, three times in July, and once in June. At least 68% are looking for an alternative if you take his high recent numbers. That going off a bunch of polls showing similar results, not just a cherrypicked one. The 32% was high number.

In July, Bachmann and Romney were 1 and 2. Bachmann collapsed. In September, Perry consistently led. When Perry collapsed, Cain took the lead. When he collapsed, Newt's taking the lead. Newt Gingrich of all people is now the "anti-establishment" candidate. How is a former speaker and pundit non establishment? Because he's not Romney, the choice of the beltway. He was also their choice last time, more than McCain.

Some say the national polls don't matter. It's state polls. The real polls start in Iowa and New Hampshire in a little over a month. The state opinion polls aren't as often as national, but the results have generally been this:

Iowa (1-3) - Newt over Romney recently, before that Cain over Romney consistently. Ron Paul gets consistently 15%-20%. Romney peaks at 20%. Newt leads around 30%

New Hampshire (1-10) - Romney leads big. Almost all polls (one outlier has Newt leading) have him at around 40% A lot of Massachusetts transplants live in New Hampshire. Despite the reputation, polls had them voting for Bush twice. Other state transplants and natives costs Bush in 2004. The "Massholes" as they are often called are going to be deciding this one.

South Carolina (1-21) - The state that won it for Bush and McCain. Romney and Cain battled in October. This month it is Newt and Cain. Newt leads in the last poll, and Cain led before that. There's still a lot of movement in this state.

Florida (1-31) - No recent polls, but Romney and Cain have battled here for awhile.

Nevada and Maine (2-4) - Caucuses. Maine has no recent polling. October had one with a 6%+ margin of error with Cain over Romney, but 6% is almost worthless. Another October poll has Mitt and Cain battling in Nevada.

Colorado and Minnesota (2-7) - Nothing recent in either state before October.

Arizona and Michigan (2-28) - One recent poll in Arizona had Newt up 28-23 over Romney with Cain at 17% Michigan is Romney's old home and where his dad was governor in the 60's. He won here last time 39-30%. EPIC/MRA had a 6.1% margin of error poll that had him leading Newt 34-20. That could mean 40-14 or 28-26. Michigan has a quasi-open primary, so that will factor in.

March 6th is Super Tuesday. It'll be likely decided by then.

Back to Romney, why isn't he catching on? People don't trust him. People also do not trust political establishments. This goes back to the end of the Bush era with the spending, bailouts, and the like. Obama the Peter Principle in Chief is deeply unpopular, but so is much of the GOP establishment, and Romney is getting the brunt of it. Some of that goes back to his record as Massachusetts governor. Some of that is due to the consultant proxy battles between Romney/McCain/Palin in the post 2008 blowups. Much of that goes down to trust. People don't trust Romney. He campaigned and was a liberal, and all of a sudden "became a conservative" when he ran for president. I don't think so. Actions not words. People don't trust a tax raising, gun grabbing, Romneycare enacting individual. If organization and money equal automatic wins, Romney would have already won. He's king there, and he still trailing nationally.

There's a big opening for someone to take out Romney. However, somebody has to take it. Either someone new has to come in (Newt rising from the ashes, Huntsman, or maybe even Ron Paul, but he'll likely get his 5-15%) or someone who collapsed has to rehab enough to get a couple of upsets. Bachmann, Perry, Cain. That is what has to happen, and it may or may not happen. Much like 2008, nobody is running away with this. Too bad that Mitch Daniels didn't run.

Right now the search is on for who can beat Romney - but also can beat Obama. (for the record, I think Obama beats Romney easily unless Obama beats himself) The search is ongoing. Anybody but Romney in the primary.

Rick Perry for President

I expect when things to shake out for this to be a three, maybe four way race in the primary. Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and possibly Michele Bachmann. Ron Paul will likely get his 5-10% with varied support for Herman Cain, Thad McCotter, Newt Gingrich, and Gary Johnson. I don't expect Sarah Palin to jump in, but I don't see her getting the nomination based on a "Can't win" worry.

Romney, Perry, and Huntsman I think are the "frontrunners." I think any of those three could win the nomination. I think of those three, two of them are very electable in the general election. Perry and Huntsman. Romney I think is less electable unless Obama beats himself.

Unless Perry drops out, I will probably not be voting for Bachmann, Cain, Paul, Newt, Johnson, Santorum, or Palin (if she runs) based on chances of winning in the general election. I protest voted in the 08 election because of Rudy McRomneyabee. I don't regret it. There's different dynamics this time.

I don't care for Romney, but he's got money and organizational skills. His organizational skills are elite. Those two things alone give him a chance. He is a former governor for one term, and has a venture capitalist background. He was the establishment favorite in 2008 and is their favorite once again this year. Working against him (I think) this time is that there's no McCain. That's hurting him with conservatives who preferred him to McCain. Huntsman may play a factor in this later on though. Despite polls, I don't think Romney is electable unless Obama beats himself. That's due to his constant shifting in positions over and over again, as well as his pandering. Where does he stand after Romneycare? Social issues, especially his shift on life issues and a consistently anti-gun record, are a factor to a degree, but Romneycare is his biggest issue, followed by the voting against it after voting for it types of shifts. Jobs is the other. His jobs record in Massachusetts isn't that stellar, and it needs to be in order to compete with Obama. His biggest weakness though isn't his views. It's his constant changing of views. There's too much John Kerry in him, although at least Romney isn't a traitor like Kerry was in his 72 senate speech. I'd probably cave if he's the nominee, but I'd really be holding my nose.

Speaking of Huntsman. Why would I support Huntsman over Romney? It's the economy stupid. Utah has been one of the brighter spots with the economy in recent years. Huntsman only had one term as governor, but there was stronger economic growth in Utah than many other places in the country. Was he responsible for all of it? No, but he didn't screw things up, although there is one major issue I have with economic issues of his that is a dealbreaker with me for any primary vote. Cap and trade. He supports it for global warming. As someone with family in the auto industry and supportive of manufacturing, that's a dealbreaker. I'm not sold on man-made global warming because A. Every study I've seen is based on an 150 year study or so, which is a drop in the bucket in earth years unless you are a young earth creationist (I'm not) or B. I'm not sold that global warming is a bad thing. Even if it is bad, how is cap and trade going to fix it? The other thing about Huntsman - good and bad - is that he's a technocrat.

Huntsman has a record of being pro-life as far as I know, but my guard is up a bit. Is he for embryo research? I'd trust him over Romney on this issue though. He is for civil unions. I oppose those and would rather have government get out of marriage altogether. That's not a dealbreak for me, but cap and trade is. However, I do think Huntsman is electable in a general election if he is the nominee. I also think you'll see a lot more from him as it gets closer to New Hampshire and Iowa. What separates Huntsman from Romney is that with Huntsman, you have a good idea what you're going to get. A moderate technocrat. I'd vote for Huntsman over Obama, but not in a primary.

Rick Perry has my support. I commented on his electability here. I think he's a center-right candidate who can win due to his experience, the economy, and the fact that people know what they are going to get from him. Perry is who he is. Do I agree with Perry 100%? No I don't. The vaccine requirement. I don't have a problem with him encouraging it, but I did with requirements. He realized his mistake and backed off. I'm also opposed to the death penalty. However, there's a lot of issues where I do agree with him.

1. Abolishing lifetime tenure for judges. Right now, there's no accountability for federal judicial decisions. There needs to be checks and balances.
2. 16th Amendment income tax. Eliminate it.
3. Balance Budget Amendment.
4. Opposition to Cap and Trade and supports of all the above energy policy which will help our economy
5. Pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment
6. Repeal Obamacare.
7. Turned down stimulus money because of the strings attached.
8. Reduced property taxes and refused to create income tax
9. Vetoes. He used the veto more times than anyone else in Texas history - despite republican control for much of his time in office.

In addition to that, the issue is experience. Obama was a junior league senator with four years of statewide elected experience. Before that, he was a state senator. He is the Peter Principle in Chief. George W Bush I think was inexperienced as well. He was a 1 1/2 term governor and his other major experience was running the Texas Rangers. I think the inexperience caught up with him in the 2nd term of his presidency. Carter was a one term governor and former state senator. He was the Peter Principle in Chief of his time, and then some. Worst president in my lifetime.

Rick Perry has a 10 year record as governor, and 10 years before that as either Lt Governor or Agricultural Commissioner. During the past 20 years, Texas has been one of the leading states in economic growth. Perry didn't do that by himself, but most importantly, he didn't screw things up. A bad governor can do a number on a state. Jennifer Granholm, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gray Davis, Kathleen Blanco, and Rod Blagojevich prove that. Rick Perry is the most conservative candidate running who can win, and he can win due to the performance of the Texas economy and jobs over the past 10 years.

Jobs is how Perry wins, and jobs is how Obama loses.