WH pressing for Huntsman resignation?

posted at 9:30 am on January 31, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

The White House has begun leaking to the press that they expect their ambassador to China, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, to resign in the next few weeks or months in order to enter the Republican primaries for the presidential nomination.  Both Jake Tapper at ABC and Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns at Politico have reports this morning on the chatter.  Neither report has any date in mind for Huntsman’s departure, but both carry plenty of snark aimed at Huntsman by his current bosses.

From Tapper:

White House officials tell ABC News that the Obama administration expects the US Ambassador to China, former GOP Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, to step down from his post in the coming months to explore a possible 2012 run for president. …

At the Gridiron dinner Saturday night, White House Chief of Staff William Daley joked that President Obama “has no hard feelings,” a White House source noted. “He just did an interview with the Tea Party Express about how integral he has been to the success of the Obama administration.”

Politico’s report contains the same TPE joke, and also this:

“It’s also good to see Jon Huntsman, our ambassador to China,” Daley said, according to a source in the room. “Or as we call him around the White House: the Manchurian Candidate.

Martin and Burns report that the snark comes from a poorly-concealed annoyance at Huntsman’s presidential aspirations.  However, Obama has only himself to blame, as Huntsman’s appointment to China was blatantly political:

For all their quips, Obama officials are a tad irritated at the barely-veiled presidential moves of their own ambassador in one of the most important countries in the world.

But the appointment of Huntsman was, in the first place, unmistakably political. With senior Obama advisers openly fretting about the prospect of facing off against a telegenic, wealthy, center-right Republican, shipping him off to Beijing was hailed as a savvy play.

No way, the assumption went, could he somehow return stateside and capture his party’s nomination after serving in the Obama administration.

Now, as the 2012 GOP primary slowly begins, that seems to be the central question hanging over a potential Huntsman run.

The White House strategists may have been too clever by half.  Few people had heard of Huntsman outside of Utah in 2009.  While Huntsman had a good center-right record in the state, he had not done much to build himself into a national brand.  Since then, the political winds have blown far more favorably to conservatives within the GOP, which may have left Huntsman on the outside in any case.  Now Hunstman has a much higher profile than he may otherwise have attained.

In fact, they may have done themselves more damage than good.  Putting Huntsman in China would give him more credibility in foreign policy than just about any of the other presumed candidates in the GOP race except for John Bolton.  Even if Huntsman doesn’t win the nomination, criticism of Obama’s “smart diplomacy” from within the fold — especially from the man who managed the key relationship with the nation that holds a large chunk of our debt — will do significant damage to Obama in a general election.

This looks like an effort to push Huntsman into resigning as soon as possible.  The sooner Huntsman leaves, the sooner the White House can blame him for the failures in the US-China relationship over the last two years.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Huntsman has this weird compulsion to work closely with stubborn communists, and also with China.

RBMN on January 31, 2011 at 9:35 AM

Well bho has to blame someone for failures, it sure isn’t bho’s now is it?
L

letget on January 31, 2011 at 9:35 AM

This really is the pettiest administration ever to curse the White House, a gaggle of little bullies and smart-asses.

Bishop on January 31, 2011 at 9:36 AM

Good. He’ll be available to become the Undersecretary of State under Mr. Bolton in the next administration.

ncjetsfan on January 31, 2011 at 9:38 AM

teh smart ones they are

Sugar Land on January 31, 2011 at 9:39 AM

“Or as we call him around the White House: the Manchurian Candidate.

…that would be Obama, not Huntsman.

Ozprey on January 31, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Cue Thirteen pressing for another snarky round of “Republicorp” jokes in 3 . . . 2 . . .

Ryan Anthony on January 31, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Even if Huntsman doesn’t win the nomination, criticism of Obama’s “smart diplomacy” from within the fold — especially from the man who managed the key relationship with the nation that holds a large chunk of our debt — will do significant damage to Obama in a general election.

This only applies if a Huntsman run allows for criticism of the Obama Administration. I tend to think that Huntsman will only level criticism at his fellow Republicans while staying “above the fray” in speaking about the president.

myrenovations on January 31, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Yeah, it’s definitely a “shove” out of the door. However, Huntsman’s deluding himself about 2012.

Robert_Paulson on January 31, 2011 at 9:43 AM

Oh, please. Huntsman is the White House’s dream opposition candidate. A full-fledged RINO and Obama can keep reminding the voters “When Jon worked for me, when Jon worked for me, when Jon worked for me.”

Primary voters, I beg you. I am begging you. Tell this empty suit to stay in DC with the other empty suit. Can you just imagine the kind of people he’d appoint to the Supreme Court!??? They’d be no different than Obama’s appointments. NO WAY.

Rational Thought on January 31, 2011 at 9:44 AM

No way, the assumption went, could he somehow return stateside and capture his party’s nomination after serving in the Obama administration.

I’m in that “amen corner”…

Ozprey on January 31, 2011 at 9:44 AM

The sooner Huntsman leaves, the sooner the White House can blame him for the failures in the US-China relationship over the last two years.

You know it!

SHARPTOOTH on January 31, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Huntsman is delusional.

artist on January 31, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Before the Palinistas come in to crucify Huntsman for his sins of being a CENTER-right Republican, take a moment to reconsider. He might be an excellent choice for her VP if she secures the nomination: telegenic, good foreign policy experience, can openly criticize Obama with added weight given his status as an “insider”, and moderate enough cred to potentially appease us RINO candyasses.

Vyce on January 31, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Huntsman’s batty if he thinks he’ll win the primary. An environut and immigration dove from the most conservative states in the Union, in the pocket of the most liberal president since Jimmah.

If he didn’t leave, we would have eventually primaried him, I wager.

KingGold on January 31, 2011 at 9:51 AM

Funny how “center-right” looks so much like left.

SKYFOX on January 31, 2011 at 9:54 AM

Vyce on January 31, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Possible compromise. Use him to fluff the candyasses in her first term and dump his ass for her second term. No more RINO’s. From what I recall, he wasn’t necessarily a conservative when it came to governing UT.

CTSherman on January 31, 2011 at 9:58 AM

Vyce on January 31, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Explain to us yokels what type of moderation he got that is so tempting.

Pro-monorail?

the_nile on January 31, 2011 at 10:00 AM

Before the Palinistas come in to crucify Huntsman for his sins of being a CENTER-right Republican, take a moment to reconsider. He might be an excellent choice for her VP if she secures the nomination: telegenic, good foreign policy experience, can openly criticize Obama with added weight given his status as an “insider”, and moderate enough cred to potentially appease us RINO candyasses.

Vyce on January 31, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Bolton is better. Besides, wouldn’t Huntsman resigning make him a ‘quitter’?

fossten on January 31, 2011 at 10:01 AM

I wish the Rooney ambassadorship would backfire on him also.

Cindy Munford on January 31, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Both Jake Tapper at ABC and Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns at Politico have reports dutifully carry the admin’s water this morning on the chatter.

Branch Rickey on January 31, 2011 at 10:05 AM

shipping him off to Beijing was hailed as a savvy play.

Heh? Not so much now.

tinkerthinker on January 31, 2011 at 10:07 AM

He might be an excellent choice for her VP if she secures the nomination: telegenic

Like a female might be considered “pretty”, as in the only reason McCain chose Palin?

I thought we were looking for substance, not just looks?

*scratches head*

Bishop on January 31, 2011 at 10:07 AM

This guy is a liberal Republican establishment drone. This is the guy they are going to try and shove down conservatives throats if Romney doesn’t work out.

True_King on January 31, 2011 at 10:08 AM

SKYFOX on January 31, 2011 at 9:54 AM

Everything looks “left” when you are at the end of the spectrum on the right. If you guys keep calling us moderate conservatives “leftists”, you are going to lose altogether. Keep sticking to those hardcore principles and see where that gets you…

jdoubleu on January 31, 2011 at 10:09 AM

I wish the Rooney ambassadorship would backfire on him also.

Cindy Munford on January 31, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Are you kidding? Rooney’s buddy-buddy with Obama. It’s no end of frustration to Rush Limbaugh, who has to live with the shame of the Pittsburgh Steelers being the “regime’s team.”

KingGold on January 31, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Lee Majors Jon Huntsman stars in the remake of the classic 1980s tv hit The Fall Guy – Adventures With Our Debtors – China Edition.

Also starring in the affirmative action tough guy role is Heather Locklear Barcky Hussein Obamalamadingdong

Branch Rickey on January 31, 2011 at 10:10 AM

However, Obama has only himself to blame, as Huntsman’s appointment to China was blatantly political

Weren’t they all?

tinkerthinker on January 31, 2011 at 10:11 AM

If he even thinks about running against dear leader he better stick up for himself and trash him just as much as the admin will treat him….don’t ne nice to him, cause he sure won’t treat huntsman nice at all

cmsinaz on January 31, 2011 at 10:13 AM

The Scoop:

Glenn Beck came out a few weeks ago and said Huntsman would be a great Presidential candidate.

Just sayin’

RadioFreeUSA on January 31, 2011 at 10:14 AM

jdoubleu on January 31, 2011 at 10:09 AM

The “moderate conservatives” were deriding as a gaggle of brain-dead fools anyone who didn’t accept Mike Castle and his ilk. You spent the entire 2010 election cycle flinging poop at those who dared question the limp-wristed RINO’s the GOP was shoving down our throats, and now you’re mad when it’s flung back at you? Cry me a river.

Bishop on January 31, 2011 at 10:15 AM

Bolton is better. Besides, wouldn’t Huntsman resigning make him a ‘quitter’?
fossten on January 31, 2011 at 10:01 AM

As much as I like and respect the man, I’m not convinced Bolton really wants to run for POTUS / VP. His hinting at running has always struck me more as an attempt to draw attention to foreign policy goals so that they’re not forgotten. He’d make an impressive Sec of State.

Point is, Palinistas, be prepared for heartache, because should Palin manage to win the nom, she WILL have to choose someone you likely view as a RINO for a running mate. We indies / moderates need some sort of bone to get us to sign on beyond “she’s not Obama”. Your dream ticket of Palin / DeMint ain’t going to happen. If she is at ALL serious about winning, she’s choose someone with moderate appeal (are you ready for VP Christie?!!!). However much of a critic I am of her, I do not view her as stupid. She’s smart enough to know what to do.

Vyce on January 31, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Palinistas

Vyce on January 31, 2011 at 10:16 AM

You assume too much.

tinkerthinker on January 31, 2011 at 10:20 AM

How stupid do Soros, Obama and Axelrod think we are?

CCRWM on January 31, 2011 at 10:22 AM

RadioFreeUSA on January 31, 2011 at 10:14 AM

We let radio talkers dictate our candidate choices a few too many times in the last cycle, I think. (*cough cough Sharron Angle*)

KingGold on January 31, 2011 at 10:23 AM

Vyce: I think the Reagan Presidency shows that RINOs can and do have a place in electoral politics.

For myself, I would be perfectly happy with a Palin/Christie ticket. And I am sure I qualify as a ‘Palinista’ to you.

This guy would raise a few more eyebrows for me.

Scott H on January 31, 2011 at 10:25 AM

“It’s also good to see Jon Huntsman, our ambassador to China,” Daley said, according to a source in the room. “Or as we call him around the White House: the Manchurian Candidate.

That doesn’t make any sense. Technically, Huntsman would be a straw man, with Obama as the Manchurian Candidate.

On its face, this seems pretty ham-fisted on the part of the White House. But the media should still be able to use him anyway. They can say: “Look, there’s already been a RINO candidate, and he fell flat on his face. So whoever we push as McCain v.2.0 will have to be the real deal this time — honest!”

logis on January 31, 2011 at 10:25 AM

CCRWM on January 31, 2011 at 10:22 AM

I think they are pretty surprised we can feed ourselves.. oh wait!

Cindy Munford on January 31, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Vyce: I think the Reagan Presidency shows that RINOs can and do have a place in electoral politics.

For myself, I would be perfectly happy with a Palin/Christie ticket. And I am sure I qualify as a ‘Palinista’ to you. This guy would raise a few more eyebrows for me.

Scott H on January 31, 2011 at 10:25 AM

Of course Reagan’s election showed that RINOs have a place in American politics: as LOSERS.

logis on January 31, 2011 at 10:29 AM

As much as I like and respect the man, I’m not convinced Bolton really wants to run for POTUS / VP. His hinting at running has always struck me more as an attempt to draw attention to foreign policy goals so that they’re not forgotten. He’d make an impressive Sec of State.

Vyce on January 31, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Bolton would demolish Biden in the Veep debates, and he brings a needed tough guy foreign policy gravitas to the Palin ticket.

Point is, Palinistas, be prepared for heartache, because should Palin manage to win the nom, she WILL have to choose someone you likely view as a RINO for a running mate. We indies / moderates need some sort of bone to get us to sign on beyond “she’s not Obama”. Your dream ticket of Palin / DeMint ain’t going to happen. If she is at ALL serious about winning, she’s choose someone with moderate appeal (are you ready for VP Christie?!!!). However much of a critic I am of her, I do not view her as stupid. She’s smart enough to know what to do.

Huntsman would be distrusted by the base and would be a puzzling choice. You’ve outsmarted yourself this time – don’t always look at things through a political spectrum. This country really needs reform, and needs it right now. Only strong conservatives can save this country from ruin at this point. Squishes need not apply.

fossten on January 31, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Vyce: I think the Reagan Presidency shows that RINOs can and do have a place in electoral politics.
For myself, I would be perfectly happy with a Palin/Christie ticket. And I am sure I qualify as a ‘Palinista’ to you.
This guy would raise a few more eyebrows for me.
Scott H on January 31, 2011 at 10:25 AM

Fair enough. I personally have no investment in Huntsman. His potential candidacy is just useful to make the point that I have made: given the division in the GOP (and it is obviously there), some sort of coalition ticket is necessary. Which means that potential GOP nominee Palin would be well served to choose SOME sort of moderate (which so many of you have come to blanketly label “RINOs”) to be on her ticket. Huntsman wouldn’t be the best choice, but the point is to start considering moderate choices.

Vyce on January 31, 2011 at 10:33 AM

Vyce on January 31, 2011 at 10:33 AM

So who is your preferred candidate?

Cindy Munford on January 31, 2011 at 10:35 AM

Everything looks “left” when you are at the end of the spectrum on the right. If you guys keep calling us moderate conservatives “leftists”, you are going to lose altogether. Keep sticking to those hardcore principles and see where that gets you…

jdoubleu on January 31, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Define moderate conservative? Never heard of such a thing before. You are either a conservative (and thus you are an “ultra right winger”, as defined by the press), or you are moderate (and thus open to all sorts of compromises, like partial Obamacare, or kinder and gentler immigration reform, or maybe you agree that the TEA party is too extreme because they want to stop funding Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc……).

How has being wishy-washy, and voting for the popular boy in the elections treated you lately????? Keep sticking to those independent principles of yours and see where it gets you!

You’ve got to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything isn’t just a song. It’s the Truth.

I don’t disagree with you that elections are won by compromising with your principles, on occasion. However, claiming that taxes can fix our problems, and not recognizing that destructive fiscal logic and practices which clearly make no sense whatsoever (spend money to get the economy going??), and oppressive business regulations (no oil and gas offshore permits approved in 9 months, give Wall Street money, but do nothing to keep smaller banks from going under, saddle new businesses with oppressive health care mandates) are what is causing our current economic decline, and thus extreme unemployment in this country, sound far more like Dhimmicrat political ploys than independence and moderate thought.

While I am not saying you support any of those things, threatening that you would support some other candidate than a staunchly conservative Republican unless a bone was thrown to you that might bring you and your “moderate” peers more government cash, or at least pay for poor people to live better, makes you look far more like part of the problem than the solution.

I’m sure you are a good conservative thinker. However, failing to support a good conservative candidate, for any number of reasons, up to and including, SHE is too conservative, make you sound far more like a Dhimmicrat than a conservative. When you play Devil’s Advocate, you are merely defending the Devil from his due.

In order to get the country back on the correct foot, there is only ONE way to bring about change that will work. Vote for the most fiscally conservative candidate possible. Otherwise, Dhimmicrats will win, and the country goes further down the road to collapse. If it collapses, pull out your guns, protect your own property. Band together to protect your communities. And cease all cooperation with the federal goernment that doesn’t help you save your own family. They’ve gotten us into this mess. Let them go to the poor people they so desperately want to enrich, and let them help the tyrannical government that brought us all down.

Subsunk

Subsunk on January 31, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Kids on my street playing football have fewer disagreements then this administration.
They are just children on a playground…which would be irritating and cute, except lives have been lost, homes have been lost, jobs have been lost, countries have been lost…while the children play.

right2bright on January 31, 2011 at 10:43 AM

Subsunk on January 31, 2011 at 10:39 AM

Your “black and white” policy doesn’t work in real life…anymore then you could adhere to the same standards.
Only you get to define what is “conservative fiscal”…there are many fiscal conservatives, that could argue about whether to raise the debt or not.
You say “good conservative”, do you mean a libertarian? They are fiscal conservative, but hugely social liberal.
Do you mean the solid fiscal conservative that would remove SSI, or do you meant the practical one that wants to revise it?
Do you mean fiscal conservative who wants to help the people get out of economic turmoil brought on by the government…or do you mean the fiscal conservative that says “let them eat cake”…
The fiscal conservative that says no government health or welfare…or the one that says revise the system and help the “least among us”.
So easy to say “support the true fiscal conservative”…isn’t it?

right2bright on January 31, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Smart. Power.

Gotta love it.

crazy_legs on January 31, 2011 at 10:51 AM

The Scoop:

Glenn Beck came out a few weeks ago and said Huntsman would be a great Presidential candidate.

Just sayin’

RadioFreeUSA on January 31, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Beck is close friends with his father, so I would take that endorsement with a grain of salt. Also, Palin is and has been Beck’s pick for a while. However, he is probably the one person more controversial than she is on the right, so my hunch is that they agreed to distance from one another so his name isn’t thrown out every time someone references her (potential) run for the presidency.

Kataklysmic on January 31, 2011 at 10:52 AM

some sort of coalition ticket is necessary.
Vyce on January 31, 2011 at 10:33 AM

The “coalition candidate” is a functioning cliche: what every ticket of every presidential campaign has always been about anyway. Of course there will be one.

But it won’t involve this talking mannequin, on either end of the ticket.

rrpjr on January 31, 2011 at 10:59 AM

Oh, please. Huntsman is the White House’s dream opposition candidate. A full-fledged RINO and Obama can keep reminding the voters “When Jon worked for me, when Jon worked for me, when Jon worked for me.”

Primary voters, I beg you. I am begging you. Tell this empty suit to stay in DC with the other empty suit. Can you just imagine the kind of people he’d appoint to the Supreme Court!??? They’d be no different than Obama’s appointments. NO WAY.

Rational Thought on January 31, 2011 at 9:44 AM

I agree with this. How many GOP voters are going to vote for somebody who was actually a part of the Obama administration? I mean, how “establishment” can you freaking get?

Aitch748 on January 31, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Vyce on January 31, 2011 at 10:33 AM
So who is your preferred candidate?
Cindy Munford on January 31, 2011 at 10:35 AM

For POTUS or a theoretical Palin VP?

For POTUS, maybe Romney. That’s based on perceived electability. Possibly Daniels, he might be the right contrast to Obama – less charismatic, but vastly more of an “adult” who can lead and make the necssary choices to put the fiscal choice in order. For VP, someone like Christie could be a game changer.

Vyce on January 31, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Vyce on January 31, 2011 at 11:03 AM

So you are not a fan of the Tea Party movement?

Cindy Munford on January 31, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Resign? Hell no! Make the bastards fire ya.

Serious street cred.

mojo on January 31, 2011 at 11:42 AM

If Palin wants some suggestions about who to pick for VP she should forget Hunstman and go have a talk to John Bolton. He did say he was running to focus attention on certain aspects of foreign policy and that he didn’t expect to win- I’d wager that a VP slot with Palin would help him bring that focus to laser beam intensity- plus he stands a much better chance of winning that office.

He gets his wish, Palin gets her foreign policy credentials and we get to see Bolton go to work in the VP debates. It would also be sweet to see the reaction of Congressional Democrats to Bolton as VP- the man they blocked from even getting a confirmation vote to serve W at the UN.

Jay Mac on January 31, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Your “black and white” policy doesn’t work in real life…anymore then you could adhere to the same standards.
Only you get to define what is “conservative fiscal”…there are many fiscal conservatives, that could argue about whether to raise the debt or not.
You say “good conservative”, do you mean a libertarian? They are fiscal conservative, but hugely social liberal.
Do you mean the solid fiscal conservative that would remove SSI, or do you meant the practical one that wants to revise it?
Do you mean fiscal conservative who wants to help the people get out of economic turmoil brought on by the government…or do you mean the fiscal conservative that says “let them eat cake”…
The fiscal conservative that says no government health or welfare…or the one that says revise the system and help the “least among us”.
So easy to say “support the true fiscal conservative”…isn’t it?

right2bright on January 31, 2011 at 10:50 AM

It’s worked for me for over 50 yrs.

It is easy to support a true fiscal conservative.

Charity is best through the Church or my own checkbook.

SSI is thievery. Legalized thievery, but thievery, nonetheless. The government has already taken my free health care for life from my Nazvy service. Why does anyone else get to have it (SSI, Medicare, Medicaid) at government expense. I was promised free for life for 20+ yrs in the Navy. Look where that got me. Thanks, Newt!

I’m not against raising the debt ceiling IF, and that’s a big IF, the govt budget, including SSI, Medicare, etc… are cut right away, today, this year, now. The govt raised my retirement age to 68 some years ago, and NEVER asked a single one of us how we felt about that. Why not raise it to 72 now, since we are living to 76 on average. Hell, raise it to 76. Law of Averages wins.

I could go on and on. The point is too many folks believe that there is only one way to change things. Slowly, over time, and including everyone’s opinions. Bullshit.

Sounds like the wars everyone complains about being too costly….. but we can’t just destroy our enemies. Long wars mean lots of casualties over time. Short wars mean huge carnage, but less casualties over time. Either you do what’s right, or you don’t. If you don’t stop complaining when things don’t work out for the best.

Playing a Dhimmicrat’s game and trying to beat him at it is foolish. Just cut off the spending, now, today, and let the tottering businesses go under. Someone will buy them and make them work again. In two years, you’d have a country where businesses made lots of money again, charity would thrive because we all give to help our neighbors, and the country would then be ready to handle the next wars, which are most assuredly coming, since we won’t fight radical Islam while we can…..

Go ahead and tell me how the pain would be so much worse than it is right now? What a crock. Over 17% of Americans cannot find full time employment. You don’t think that is a Depression? You think half measures will fix those things?

Nuremburg and Mecca will have a lot in common when the next two decades are over.

Subsunk

Subsunk on January 31, 2011 at 12:15 PM

I’m convinced that this idea of Huntsman as potential GOP candidate is entirely a media-created myth.

They’re the only ones who keep bringing it up!

tsj017 on January 31, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Gee, it would be great if for the 2012 election conservatives would dismiss any guidance given by the MSM or progressives on who should be our candidate. Isn’t that how we wound up with McCain? Sheesh

in_awe on January 31, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Oh, please. Huntsman is the White House’s dream opposition candidate. A full-fledged RINO and Obama can keep reminding the voters “When Jon worked for me, when Jon worked for me, when Jon worked for me.”…

Rational Thought on January 31, 2011 at 9:44 AM

This works both ways. Whenever Bammie criticizes him we can say, -”but you thought highly enough of him to give him our nation’s most important ambassador job…”

Whatever you think of Huntsman, Bammie’s dance around this hypocrisy would be a wonder to behold.

slickwillie2001 on January 31, 2011 at 1:30 PM

With senior Obama advisers openly fretting about the prospect of facing off against a telegenic, wealthy, center-right Republican, shipping him off to Beijing was hailed as a savvy play.

Ploy, not play.

Huntsman is not his father. Still, even Beck might back him, if he emerges toward the top, out of friendship to his father.

Trump/Cain

Schadenfreude on January 31, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Your “black and white” policy doesn’t work in real life…anymore then you could adhere to the same standards.

This is just flat-out wrong.

You either believe in spending money you don’t have or you don’t.

You either believe individuals have a right to keep their money or you don’t.

You either believe in bailing out failed companies/states or you don’t.

You either believe in funding the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security or you don’t.

You either believe in charity begins in the home or you don’t. And you either donate or you don’t (because you believe the government “does it” for you).

See how easy that is? This isn’t social issues, where people argue about when life begins or the sanctity of human life vs. other beings, etc., etc.

Fiscal conservatism is so much more “black and white” than other portions of Conservatism that rely on more esoteric factorsand arguments.

So why are you trying to sway people that it’s not so straightforward, when fiscal conservatism is the one thread tying diverse members of the Tea Party together?

Wait a minute…

Miss_Anthrope on January 31, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Everything looks “left” when you are at the end of the spectrum on the right. If you guys keep calling us moderate conservatives “leftists”, you are going to lose altogether. Keep sticking to those hardcore principles and see where that gets you…

jdoubleu on January 31, 2011 at 10:09 AM

Wow…WAY to stand up for and vote according to your principles, rather than based on who “hurts your wittle feewings.”

Bishop on January 31, 2011 at 10:15 AM

2010 wasn’t the only year the base heard it. Moderates have been bitching for years to the base about their ‘backward’ views, then decrying the base should ‘suck it up’ yet again at the voting booths.

As someone who was socially ‘libtarded’ in my youth, I’ve participated in extremely small doses in the rails against the base…to my friends, NOT to the base. And if the base pissed me off, I STILL voted according to my PRINCIPLES.

Maybe it’s because I’m not FICKLE.

Moderates who neither make up the base of the Republican party, nor that of the Democrat party, are not ones who should dictate the direction of either.

If YOU don’t go to the excruciatingly boring party meetings, volunteer to call/knock on doors/plant signs, or participate in local events (precint chairman/farmers markets/member elections), then YOU can’t tell US how we are to vote.

Just go do your little THANG until the Presidential elections like you always do, choosing a candidate based on total WHIM. And leave US OUT of your little drama.

Miss_Anthrope on January 31, 2011 at 2:16 PM

If President Obama is so smart as his PR handler spin it, then explain why President Obama sent Mr. Huntsman to China, in the first place? Trying to make nice with U.S.. Now, Mr. Huntsman is resigning from the ‘Goodship Lollipop” – the PR is so he can run for President in 2012. What is the actual reason cited?

Most Presidents would the likes of Mr. Huntsman to Bumbf@#k Egypt. Why did President Obama not do that? Probably because President Obama knew what was going to happen in Egypt and didn’t want Mr. Huntsman to be able to pull off an October surprise in January 2011.

Besides BF Egypt, where else can the Administrations send those they do not want to hear from to?

The mythical Thule Greenland has been found out not to be that bad for isolating a looser after-all. Same goes for Timbucktoo.

Maybe the best place to hid your enemy is next door to you so you can keep an eye on them, Oh, that’s right Biden is next door to Obama already.

MSGTAS on February 1, 2011 at 9:24 AM