Top Democrats: Huntsman is the Republican we fear most

posted at 8:16 pm on May 11, 2011 by Allahpundit

He’s a centristy maverick with foreign policy chops — and you know how well those types do against Barack Obama in national elections.

Top Democrats in and outside the White House, speaking on background so they could be more candid, suggest that former US Ambassador to China and Utah Governor Jon Huntsman would be the GOP candidate President Obama would least like to face in 2012 — but they think he can’t win the nomination.

The very qualities that make Huntsman formidable in November 2012 — his centrism and bipartisanship — will work against him in Iowa and South Carolina, Democrats say…

The president has told friends he “caught lightning in a bottle” in 2008, and even catching every break, Obama only won with 53% of the vote, with 47% of the country voting against him — a number Democrats say isn’t going to go down in 2012, with an economy still on the mend, high unemployment and skyrocketing gas prices.

It’ll be taken as a given that this is some sort of crude experiment in reverse psychology, aimed at convincing conservatives to nominate a guy who’s easy pickings for Obama in the general election instead of, oh, say, Michele Bachmann. (Rush Limbaugh dismissed the media’s interest in Mitch Daniels on those grounds just a few days ago.) If that’s the case, though, why does the White House semi-jokingly tout Huntsman’s service as ambassador at every turn knowing that the link to Obama is poisonous to him in the primaries? More to the point, why did they offer him the ambassadorship in the first place? That move was intended in part from the very beginning to take him out of contention for 2012. If they want him to win, they should frame him as being fundamentally hostile to The One and his foreign policy and maybe more confrontational with China than they preferred in order to give him a Trumpian “bravado boost” among the base. If they think he’s a tin can, they should be setting him up to win by polishing his anti-Obama cred.

As for the “reverse psychology” argument, if conservatives were given a choice of facing Mark Warner or Bernie Sanders in a national election, I assume most would prefer to face the latter since, as a leftist, he’d have a tougher time capturing independents than a centrist like Warner would. That’s not us using reverse psychology on the left, it’s simple recognition that elections tend to be won in the middle provided that the nominee isn’t so far to the center that his/her base won’t turn out in big numbers. That’s no problem for the GOP in 2012; disgust with Obama runs so deep that grassroots righties will be out in droves no matter who the pick is. In which case, it’s not so much “reverse psychology” by the left that points them towards Huntsman, it’s conventional wisdom about not wanting to face someone who can poach votes from indies that they need when they already have to worry about gigantic turnout among the anti-Obama grassroots. None of that really matters in this particular case — Huntsman doesn’t have a prayer in the primaries — but electability will be a factor for voters when picking a nominee. The flattery he’s getting on the left is really just their awareness of that, knowing that he’s dead in the water already.

Speaking of electability, here’s Trump trying to reframe himself in a post-Birther landscape.

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

Comment pages: 1 2

Voting for Obama, under any circumstances, is nuts…there is no way to justify it.

AUINSC on May 11, 2011 at 10:03 PM

Yes there is. It’s better that the disaster happens on our watch rather than our children’s.

sharrukin on May 11, 2011 at 10:05 PM

Don’t throw me into that Briar Patch! said Br’er Rabbit, Democrat Operative.

profitsbeard on May 11, 2011 at 10:08 PM

Inhofe for president anyone?

AshleyTKing on May 11, 2011 at 10:11 PM

Who the heck is pushing him – allapundit? Is it just you?

Bambi on May 11, 2011 at 10:13 PM

I can’t believe Allah isn’t thrilled about it.

Big Orange on May 11, 2011 at 10:15 PM

Palin = Attack, rip down, smear and have a perpetual hate on.

Huntsmen = We love, he’s cool and assure you GOPers he’s going to be hard to beat.

Um which of these two are they more in fear of running? Its not the one they are praising…

Sharr on May 11, 2011 at 10:19 PM

He is the very most anti-abortion candidate (came very near complete illegalization in Utah) and he has the most sucessful pro-business record of any of them. He was rated as the top business governor by pew and either cato or forbes, I’ve seen both.

His only problems are: come out for civil unions instead of gay marriage… he signed on to the global warming thing… and he served as ambassador to China.

And he can give a speech with a smidge of charisma.

But since he only nominated Sarah Palin, his friend and fellow western state governor, to be John McCain’s running mate… instead of actually being Sarah Palin, he’s a RINO.

Of course.

Relax! He is only running for Secretary of State anyway, so calm down! Nobody is going to force you to vote for him!

petunia on May 11, 2011 at 9:07 PM

Not going to comment on Huntsman as I don’t have enough info, but my belief is that Palin was a mistake.

I firmly believe that the GOP knew they were going to lose. They tossed her in there as VP so as not to “sully” the establishment candidates – Romney, Huckabee, etc and thought they could control her.

So I wouldn’t use tossing Palin into the fray as being a positive for him. It is for conservatives as she is the strongest “conservative” out there, but not for the establishment GOP. And certainly not something that a “friend” would do.

kim roy on May 11, 2011 at 10:20 PM

I firmly believe that the GOP knew they were going to lose. They tossed her in there as VP so as not to “sully” the establishment candidates – Romney, Huckabee, etc and thought they could control her.

kim roy on May 11, 2011 at 10:20 PM

Minor point. Recall she did a lot of damage to the GOP in Alaska and they may have had less kind intentions than what you are suggesting. They may have wanted to destroy her in a lost cause, as payback for what she did up north.

sharrukin on May 11, 2011 at 10:24 PM

Actually the article is probably not wrong, and here is why.

Presidential elections are typically pretty close in popular vote, and it is the undecided/swing voters/independents who actually end up determining who wins, much more than who is the pure ideologue, since the hard core base will turn out anyways.

In 2008, those gave Obama the benefit of a doubt for various reasons, when in 00 and 04, they voted for Bush 43.

Huntsman would probably be good at getting a significant number of those who voted for Obama, to vote for the him instead.

I am not saying Huntsman is the perfect candidate, but he would do a great job at the swing voters that tilted towards Obama. The social conservatives however would not be too happy with him, buts its not like they are going to vote for Obama.

firepilot on May 11, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Seriously…do they think this is going to work ?

CCRWM on May 11, 2011 at 8:18 PM

One word: John McCain.

truth2power on May 11, 2011 at 10:44 PM

If we don’t get a REAGAN this election – this nation is doomed. May as well sit at home or do what I will do – send a protest vote to the GOP by casting in favor of Obama!

HondaV65 on May 11, 2011 at 9:23 PM

Reagan is dead. Palin is not even close to Reagan. It is insulting for you to suggest it!

The GOP nominee cannot win without significant conservative turnout.
fiatboomer on May 11, 2011 at 8:25 PM

You are not conservative. You are Palin fans. That does not make you conservative that makes you groupies. You aren’t even close to conservative, you believe in a person, not an ideology.

The worse Obama’s economy becomes, the more power resides in the middle. And the less important you are.

And if you stay home during the Primary all the better. If you refuse to vote for people who could actually do the job, I hope you do.

Huntsman doesn’t threaten you. At most he will get Secretary of State. Nobody this unknown can win it, but you don’t have a clue about his record. And you dont’ care to educate yourself. You just hate.

And you just dance along to the music the left is playing for you. Oooo Carter says… Oooo Obama says….. so we must….. so typical.

petunia on May 11, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Umm yeah, that Ronald Reagan guy was just too conservative to get elected (twice), he was too divisive.

That’s what the establishment Republicans were saying about him.

AZfederalist on May 11, 2011 at 10:48 PM

I am not saying Huntsman is the perfect candidate, but he would do a great job at the swing voters that tilted towards Obama. The social conservatives however would not be too happy with him, buts its not like they are going to vote for Obama.

firepilot on May 11, 2011 at 10:30 PM

What would social conservatives not like? That he created a fund in Utah so that if the state can get the votes to outlaw abortion the state can fight the ACLU?

Will they dislike that before an abortion is performed in Utah the mother must be fully informed about the pain the baby will feel as it is killed?

He said he would rather have civil unions than gay marriage. Then he said it wasn’t his issue… so I guess they will hate him.

Look him up.

Nobody does any homework.

Not going to comment on Huntsman as I don’t have enough info, but my belief is that Palin was a mistake.

I firmly believe that the GOP knew they were going to lose. They tossed her in there as VP so as not to “sully” the establishment candidates – Romney, Huckabee, etc and thought they could control her.

So I wouldn’t use tossing Palin into the fray as being a positive for him. It is for conservatives as she is the strongest “conservative” out there, but not for the establishment GOP. And certainly not something that a “friend” would do.

kim roy on May 11, 2011 at 10:20 PM

So you believe that John McCain didn’t want to win and was pretending to run for President…

Was it a mistake or was it vindictive?

Your conspiracy makes no sense!

Basing your dislike of Huntsman on the fact that he had enough confidence in Sarah to nominate her and she lost… that does not make any rational sense.

petunia on May 11, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Reagen was not “Reagen” until after he proved how dumb people were for underestimating him. The same is, and holds true of Sarah Palin.

Its not an insult to liken Reagen and Palin, otherwise one would need to think that Michael Reagan has insulted his father…

Reagen 2.o is here – its just too many are in denial to see it. Their loss.

Sharr on May 11, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Actually, Reagan was never “Reagen”…

Jaibones on May 11, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Huntsman is an ass-clown liberal. Spare us the stupid horse-race drama and let’s talk about the real candidates.

Jaibones on May 11, 2011 at 11:03 PM

Top Democrats: Huntsman is the Republican we fear most

And the New York Times will dutifully rave about what a great Republican he is.

Been there, done that, you losers.

I WILL NOT VOTE RINO IN 2012.

disa on May 11, 2011 at 11:07 PM

Sharr on May 11, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Come on – are you telling me you don’t even know how to spell his name?

disa on May 11, 2011 at 11:08 PM

You are not conservative. You are Palin fans. That does not make you conservative that makes you groupies. You aren’t even close to conservative, you believe in a person, not an ideology.

The worse Obama’s economy becomes, the more power resides in the middle. And the less important you are.

petunia on May 11, 2011 at 10:45 PM

You believe in a friggin’ Party, not an ideology. And you’re an idiot if you think any GOP nominee is going to win without Palin and her fans. Try it.

pseudoforce on May 11, 2011 at 11:25 PM

OK I wrote this big long thing about misspelling Reagan’s named. but you know, its a waste of effort. I made an error in a rush to post – not worth arguing over.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/sarah-palin-dumb-like-reagan/

Sharr on May 11, 2011 at 11:27 PM

Reagan is dead. Palin is not even close to Reagan. It is insulting for you to suggest it!

petunia on May 11, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Of course she isn’t, but she comes closer than anyone else in the field at the moment. Besides, I don’t think Reagan would be insulted at all. The squishy types who belittled him before and during his presidency now hold him up as one of their own. That’s the insult.

pseudoforce on May 11, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Sharr on May 11, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Reagan was governor of a state with an economy the size of many large countries for eight years. He was a very popular President who dealt with both parties well. He made friends not enemies.

Reagan was President of the screen actors guild, and worked with the communists in the film industry and saw their threat up close.

Reagan ran for President 3 times.

Reagan traveled the country as the spokesman for GE for a decade and got to know every nook and cranny of this country.

Reagan was an honest enough man to change his political party and change his liberal positions openly to more conservative ones.

Reagan joined the army as a private and became a 2nd Lt.
Later he joined the Army Air Force and became a Captain.

Reagan worked for decades to become ready to be a President. He didn’t do it over night, he didn’t gripe and blame when things didn’t go his way.

Sarah Palin was a governor for two years, ran for Vice-President, turned on her handlers and aired her problems in public, then was drummed out of office by ethics complaints she could not defend herself against. And no one with power or money wanted to help her because she turns on every one who tries to help her.

These two people have almost nothing in common.

petunia on May 11, 2011 at 11:30 PM

http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/michael-reagan-praises-sarah-palin-as-the-new-ronald-reagan/

I’ve been trying to convince my fellow conservatives that they have been wasting their time in a fruitless quest for a new Ronald Reagan to emerge and lead our party and our nation. I insisted that we’d never see his like again because he was one of a kind.
I was wrong!
Wednesday night I watched the Republican National Convention on television and there, before my very eyes, I saw my Dad reborn; only this time he’s a she.

of course, now I see he thinks she’s “too polarizing”.

Sharr on May 11, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Not going to comment on Huntsman as I don’t have enough info, but my belief is that Palin was a mistake.

I firmly believe that the GOP knew they were going to lose. They tossed her in there as VP so as not to “sully” the establishment candidates – Romney, Huckabee, etc and thought they could control her.

So I wouldn’t use tossing Palin into the fray as being a positive for him. It is for conservatives as she is the strongest “conservative” out there, but not for the establishment GOP. And certainly not something that a “friend” would do.

kim roy on May 11, 2011 at 10:20 PM

So you believe that John McCain didn’t want to win and was pretending to run for President…

Was it a mistake or was it vindictive?

Your conspiracy makes no sense!

Basing your dislike of Huntsman on the fact that he had enough confidence in Sarah to nominate her and she lost… that does not make any rational sense.

petunia on May 11, 2011 at 10:52 PM

First of all, read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

John McCain ran one of the worst campaigns known to man with every mistake imaginable. Plus, he had to go up against the unpopularity of Bush. Whether he didn’t want to win or pretending, I don’t know. You don’t either. All I’m saying is that they probably knew they were going to lose and played it that way.

Where you are getting “conspiracy” in anything I’m saying, I have no idea.

What I did say was that they tossed out Palin in order not to tarnish any of the establishments for future runs. Who wants to be associated with a sinking ship or a horrific campaign? Why not some woman no one has heard of?

Agree or not, that’s not really a difficult concept and how is that a conspiracy? It was a choice.

As for my like or dislike of Huntsman, I thought I made it clear that I had no opinion on him. I only addressed your point about Palin and that had no like or dislike involved.

So any issue with rationality or sensibility seems to be within your inability to read, comprehend and process what was put in front of you, not me.

Hope that cleared it up a bit for you.

kim roy on May 11, 2011 at 11:35 PM

Last week, Huckabee, this week, Huntsman, next week they’ll tell us they are worried about Newt.

lonestar1 on May 11, 2011 at 11:37 PM

I’ll believe the Democrats are concerned about Huntsman when they start attacking him, like they are Sarah Palin. Perhaps they should have AP do a poll!!!

bflat879 on May 11, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Reagan worked for decades to become ready to be a President. He didn’t do it over night, he didn’t gripe and blame when things didn’t go his way.

petunia on May 11, 2011 at 11:30 PM

So why do you think it took Reagan “decades” to be elected? (it was actually only a couple). Why do you think he wasn’t nominated in 1968 or 1976? Did he sequester himself off like a monk to “become ready”, or was it because of establishment resistance?

pseudoforce on May 12, 2011 at 12:04 AM

Petunia on May 11, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Petunia: Please knock it off and do try to get over yourself and your air of self importance. Seriously. . you aren’t all that “conservative” either by your definition and are just your own kinda groupie. I say so, that’s why. Effective your kind of argument, isn’t it.. not.

Noelie on May 12, 2011 at 12:05 AM

Reagan worked for decades to become ready to be a President. He didn’t do it over night, he didn’t gripe and blame when things didn’t go his way.

petunia on May 11, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Here’s another question for you. Would we have been better off if Reagan had won in 1968 instead of Nixon? I mean, that would’ve meant one less decade of “getting ready” and Reagan was only into his second year as governor.

pseudoforce on May 12, 2011 at 12:07 AM

Sarah Palin was a governor for two years, ran for Vice-President, turned on her handlers and aired her problems in public, then was drummed out of office by ethics complaints she could not defend herself against. And no one with power or money wanted to help her because she turns on every one who tries to help her.

These two people have almost nothing in common.

petunia on May 11, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Ethics complaints she couldn’t defend herself against? All 20 frivolous complaints were dismissed. She was simply going bankrupt due to court.

You hate Palin because she wears the wrong kind of undies and is more woman than you ever dreamed of being. She’s swmart, beautiful, courageous, has a huswband that’s a hunk and a loving family and makes more in a month than you will make in your lifetime. You are one sad pathetic woman..

You’re a Phi Beta Kappa? Yeah, and I was a member of last year’s Green Bay SuperBowl Team.

bw222 on May 12, 2011 at 12:14 AM

Huntsman(R-INO) is “feared” by (D)’s like McCain(R-INO) was “feared” by (D)’s.

DANEgerus on May 12, 2011 at 1:19 AM

Those wiley Democrats……picking our candidates for us.
Those Democrats are good at using “child psychology.”
“Don’t nominate Huntsman!” cried the Democrat.
“We really fear that Huntsman!” shouted the other Democrat.
“Obama could never win against Huntsman!” yelled another Democrat.
Back at Democrat Headquarters:
Obama: “Those Republicans are so stupid, they’ll take the bait.”
Back at Republican Headquarters:
“Who is Huntsman?” said a Republican leader.

Mark7788 on May 12, 2011 at 1:26 AM

Petunia: Please knock it off and do try to get over yourself and your air of self importance. Seriously. . you aren’t all that “conservative” either by your definition and are just your own kinda groupie. I say so, that’s why. Effective your kind of argument, isn’t it.. not.

Noelie on May 12, 2011 at 12:05 AM

Yeah I’m a groupie for America. I am not willing to throw my country away because people in the press were mean to someone.

I’m the kind of groupie who thinks all of these guys deserve a chance to be heard and not bashed by people who have no care at all for anything except to see poor little defenseless Sarah get back at the big bad everyone in the world who picks on her.

Sarah is never at fault for any of her own troubles there is this big conspiracy to keep her down.

Please! She is out of her depth. She can’t play with the big boys and she made her own ethics problems that she bargined away by stepping down.

Convenient how we will never know how those trials would have turned out because she agreed to step down. But you just keep drinking that kool aid.

petunia on May 12, 2011 at 3:09 AM

A Democrat will beat a Democrat-lite every time. And what do we get if Huntsman gets elected? It’s one of those burn-the-village-to-save-the-village situations.

misterpeasea on May 12, 2011 at 6:29 AM

President Soros will do whatever it takes to keep him in power. Too bad the SEALS couldn’t have taken him out. He’s a bigger terrorist than Bin Ladin could have ever dreamt of being. Economic Terror used to submit a nation’s sovereignty to a global government via the U.N. is worse than what al-Queda is doing. Maybe America will wake up before it’s too late. He owns the Democrat Party….maybe it is too late……

adamsmith on May 12, 2011 at 7:07 AM

Herman Cain. End of story. No more debate.

The media fears Herman Cain!

Pcoop on May 12, 2011 at 7:11 AM

Wasn’t Palin the biggest threat? And then Trump? And now..

albill on May 12, 2011 at 7:25 AM

Please don’t nominate Huntsman, and pleeeaaase don’t throw me in that briar patch.

Brer Rabbit (D-Alinskyville)

BitterClinger on May 12, 2011 at 7:38 AM

If the Democrats were given truth serum, here’s how the headline would read:

Top Democrats: Huntsman is the Republican we fear most most want to face

Obama sees the best chance at his re-election as being one where those opposed to him are divided as they were for Clinton’s benefit in 1992. The fastest way to do that is to get the “Republicans” to nominate Huntsman, which will create a third-party conservative candidate.

Steve Eggleston on May 12, 2011 at 7:48 AM

And every NFL team really fears the Detroit Lions.

Oh, and Reagan went to Eureka College, not Ivy League, he’d never get elected.

John Deaux on May 12, 2011 at 8:22 AM

Top Democrats in and outside the White House, speaking on background so they could be more candid, suggest that former US Ambassador to China and Utah Governor Jon Huntsman would be the GOP candidate President Obama would least like to face in 2012

We’re afraid of him too. Scared to death he might get elected and wind up just like the incomprable moron, Barry Zero.

Mr. Grump on May 12, 2011 at 8:25 AM

Top Democrats: Huntsman is the Republican we fear most

That’s nice. Up until about a week ago, Hunstman could have walked right by me on the steet and I wouldn’t have known who the heck he is.

Come to think of it, I’m still trying to figure out who the heck he is!

pilamaye on May 12, 2011 at 8:33 AM

When people say, “The Democrats will always tell us who they fear,” they don’t mean that the Democrats will LITERALLY say, “Hey, we fear this guy. P-p-p-p-please don’t nominate him>!!!!”

DrAllecon on May 12, 2011 at 9:27 AM

Yeah, right.

stenwin77 on May 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM

Funny, earlier this week it was Mitch Daniels they most feared.

Someone trying to assemble a RINO herd?

PJ Emeritus on May 12, 2011 at 9:30 AM

We can’t keep looking for the next Reagan, we need to find the candidate who in 30 years, people will be waiting for the second coming of.

The presidency isn’t a task to mimic the past, but a chance to lead the future.

amazingmets on May 12, 2011 at 9:34 AM

kim roy on May 11, 2011 at 10:20 PM

sharrukin on May 11, 2011 at 10:24 PM

I think you are both right.

Fallon on May 12, 2011 at 9:39 AM

The Dems fear Huntsman because he is the one most like them…

Dasher on May 12, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Convenient how we will never know how those trials would have turned out because she agreed to step down. But you just keep drinking that kool aid.

petunia on May 12, 2011 at 3:09 AM

Trials? You need to put down the pipe get some help.

littleguy on May 12, 2011 at 9:49 AM

Actually the article is probably not wrong, and here is why.

Presidential elections are typically pretty close in popular vote, and it is the undecided/swing voters/independents who actually end up determining who wins, much more than who is the pure ideologue, since the hard core base will turn out anyways.

In 2008, those gave Obama the benefit of a doubt for various reasons, when in 00 and 04, they voted for Bush 43.

Huntsman would probably be good at getting a significant number of those who voted for Obama, to vote for the him instead.

I am not saying Huntsman is the perfect candidate, but he would do a great job at the swing voters that tilted towards Obama. The social conservatives however would not be too happy with him, buts its not like they are going to vote for Obama.

firepilot on May 11, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Yeah, those twin landslides in 1980 and 1984 were because we ran the guy who was moderate and could therefore attract votes away from the opposition.

Kafir on May 12, 2011 at 9:52 AM

Democrats love Hunstman because they know he will lose graciously to Obambi.

Saral Palin is the only candidate that has the charisma along with the right policy positions to win and beat our first celebrity president, Hussain Obama

georgealbert on May 12, 2011 at 9:58 AM

Please! [Palin] is out of her depth. She can’t play with the big boys and she made her own ethics problems that she bargined away by stepping down.

Convenient how we will never know how those trials would have turned out because she agreed to step down. But you just keep drinking that kool aid.

petunia on May 12, 2011 at 3:09 AM

Petunia is off her meds again. She’s apparently decided that the reason Palin resigned was that her administration was wracked with scandals. The fact that every single ethics charge but one was simply dismissed doesn’t faze Petunia; no, instead, she’ll declare our saying so as evidence that we’re mainlining the Kool-Aid again.

Aitch748 on May 12, 2011 at 9:58 AM

Please! She is out of her depth. She can’t play with the big boys and she made her own ethics problems that she bargined away by stepping down.

Convenient how we will never know how those trials would have turned out because she agreed to step down. But you just keep drinking that kool aid.

petunia on May 12, 2011 at 3:09 AM

You stink of willful ignorance, worm. Someone fetch me a respirator, please before I suffocate?

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 10:02 AM

The fact that every single ethics charge but one was simply dismissed doesn’t faze Petunia; no, instead, she’ll declare our saying so as evidence that we’re mainlining the Kool-Aid again.

Aitch748 on May 12, 2011 at 9:58 AM

Spin much?//////////////

[SuperSarc]

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 10:03 AM

It would be very helpful if we could get a list of the top 10 potential candidates that Democrats fear the most. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t think of voting for any of them, but I’d like to be certain.

littleguy on May 12, 2011 at 10:13 AM

That’s no problem for the GOP in 2012; disgust with Obama runs so deep that grassroots righties will be out in droves no matter who the pick is.

Yuck.

Each time an election comes up, the GOP tells us that this election is the most important and urgent in American history and that we have to come out and support the GOP candidate because his opponent is a lunatic. But NO ONE the GOP has put up seems to have done ANYTHING to reverse the course we are on, and as soon as someone pops up who has an actual history of getting things done and making things better (*cough* Palin *cough*), the GOP does everything possible to undermine this person.

Frankly I’ve come to see the GOP as part of the problem. The crisis is here, GOP. Obama got elected. Obama got Obamacare passed. Obama’s administration set his friends in the unions loose on the country. The GOP needs to put forward someone who is SERIOUS about fixing this problem, or there is no point in supporting the GOP in any way whatsoever. The GOP is NOT serious about keeping the Republic from crumbling, and if we get another establishment pick, we’ll be asked to choose between somebody who has already unleashed the lunacy on this country and somebody who won’t do anything about it because he’s too worried about what the media might think.

I’m sick of watching conservatives getting played by the GOP.

Aitch748 on May 12, 2011 at 10:16 AM

You are not conservative. You are Palin fans. That does not make you conservative that makes you groupies. You aren’t even close to conservative, you believe in a person, not an ideology.
….

petunia on May 11, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Wow.

Might want to reconsider that assertion. Not liking Palin is one thing. Accusing everyone who likes Palin of being non-conservative is just ludicrous.

You’re getting further and further off balance on the subject of Palin. Your assertions against her are becoming more and more extreme. The reason you think people are obsessing over Palin worship is because you’re obsessing over Palin bashing.

Projection.

There Goes The Neighborhood on May 12, 2011 at 10:17 AM

How about she who will not be named except to slander?

roy_batty on May 12, 2011 at 10:20 AM

They fear him the most? Wow! We must then make certain that he becomes the new “Fear Czar” under president Palin. This is nice of them to express their real inner feelings so honestly. I personally wish to apologize to the left for previoiusly doubting their willingness to help Americans make a quality voting decision. I was wrong – but only because my relatives in ancient France were obused and enslaved.

Don L on May 12, 2011 at 10:25 AM

Anybody hear about Huntsman until a few months ago? Makes you wonder who is pushing this nobody and why.

clearbluesky on May 12, 2011 at 10:41 AM

I don’t care if Mickey Mouse is on the conservative ticket -he’s got my vote.

I plugged my nose in voting for McCain. The ONLY reason was for the Supreme Court. We are doomed if the Supreme Court turns into a liberal-fest, which WILL happen if Obama is able to get another one of his wacky lefties in there.

Alibali on May 12, 2011 at 10:51 AM

Don’t throw me into that Briar Patch! said Br’er Rabbit, Democrat Operative.

profitsbeard on May 11, 2011 at 10:08 PM

Precisely what I thought when I read the headline.

tickleddragon on May 12, 2011 at 10:53 AM

…former US Ambassador to China and Utah Governor Jon Huntsman…

I never knew that we had an Ambassador to Utah!!!

/sarc>

But seriously, have the Democrats considered nominating Harry Reid for President in 2012?

landlines on May 12, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Look.

Do you know why DEMONcRATS are saying this?

They’re saying this because they want Repubs to believe this and to invest electoral energy in this Huntsman guy. Because DEMONcRATS would love to run against this guy.

Why does anyone ever believe these people?

moochy on May 12, 2011 at 11:08 AM

his centrism and bipartisanship

He sounds just like “The Bomma”.

Kjeil on May 12, 2011 at 11:16 AM

This is exactly how the Republicans were fooled into putting John McCain in the nominee seat. The left started a campaign months ahead of schedule to claim they were most “afraid” (yeah, afraid he wouldn’t get nominated) of John McCain versus Obama. Just then, articlesa about Romney’s Mormonism came out. The left are a sneaky, slimey lot and I do hope the Republicans won’t get fooled again, to quote Pete Townsend.

allstonian on May 12, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Yeah, those twin landslides in 1980 and 1984 were because we ran the guy who was moderate and could therefore attract votes away from the opposition.

Kafir

Actually Reagan did pull away many from other side, hence the Reagan Democrats, and all the indendents too that voted for him.

You can rally your own base all you want, but unless you can pick off independents and some of the other side, you do not win. Thats just the reality of modern politics, when the D and R (barring an independent candidate) are each going to get 45%, and its that remaining voters that they fight for and who determine who wins.

Reagan was more socially moderate, then either many on the right, and left for that matter, would like to admit. He was also not a polarizing figure like a couple of the GOP candidates are, and was able to steal away Dem votes.

firepilot on May 12, 2011 at 11:27 AM

He was also not a polarizing figure like a couple of the GOP candidates are, and was able to steal away Dem votes.

firepilot on May 12, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Thanks for the comic relief.

Kataklysmic on May 12, 2011 at 11:31 AM

They offered him the job back in those early days of covert Marxism because he was enough like tham to take it and had the GOP label so they could claim that they were certainly bi-partisan – he being the proof. Now, they don’t even try to pretend in bi-partisanship (have you heard it mentioned lately?)

Don L on May 12, 2011 at 11:32 AM

If you are a Palin supporter but don’t mindlessly bash the other candidates. I am not talking about you.

It is fine to have a view that Sarah is qualified and able to be President. I am skepticle of that.

But in no universe is Sarah Palin like Ronald Reagan. She makes enemies, he made friends. They are polar opposites she and her followers are trying to latch on to Reagan’s reputation for bi-partisanship and pragmatic conservatism, while being rigid and unbending. That is a lie and the opposite of Reagan’s record.

On thread after thread… everyone but Palin is a RINO.

Jon Hunstman’s record is very conservative. He was a tax cutting, anti-abortion bill sponsering, school voucher program starter, gun rights expanding, conservative. He was rated the top pro-business governor by two different financial rating sources… his stand on cap and trade was the same as the rest. There is no way you get to Marxist (as someone said above) with that record.

It is a lie. Look it up. I’m sure you’ll be able to spin lots of things, but Huntsman is no Marxist!

Maybe, just maybe, the left keeps telling you he is “moderate” because they don’t want you to look up his actual record. They know if they can convince you he is a moderate you aren’t going to vote for him.

Maybe they are playing the game just the way they did to keep you from voting for Romney last time… that’s how we got McCain. They helped you to believe stuff about Romney before you knew who he was. They know if they can do that you will never take another, fairer look.

Look up Huntsman’s record for yourself.

Look up, Daniels for yourself, don’t let the Palin and their allies on the left, destroy the reputations of these very conservative people!

Palinistas have an agenda every bit as dangerous for this country as the left. In fact the end result of their hyper-hatemonging will lead to the down fall of the conservative movement altogether because no one wants to be like them.

This is exactly how the left and the far right combined to ruin the reputation of the Republican Party in the past and now they are doing the same thing to the term “Conservative”.

“Conservative” is becoming a dirty word that only applies to closed-minded, unreasonable people.

Already leftists refuse to label anyone who is nice, as a conservative. Someone with a conservative record–but who is nice, is a moderate. Because in their view there are no nice conservatives.
And if you look at the people on Hot Air you probably can see they have a point.

petunia on May 12, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Actually Reagan did pull away many from other side, hence the Reagan Democrats, and all the indendents too that voted for him.

Reagan was more socially moderate, then either many on the right, and left for that matter, would like to admit. He was also not a polarizing figure like a couple of the GOP candidates are, and was able to steal away Dem votes.

firepilot on May 12, 2011 at 11:27 AM

I completely agree. Most of the candidates invoking Reagan couldn’t be further from him stylistically. Reagan was a charmer, he was the Great Communicator. His optimism, and more importantly his good sense of humor, made people more receptive to his message. It wasn’t just in domestic politics; Reagan was strong on national defense, but his greatest weapon against the Soviets was humor– he literally made a joke out of communism. Reagan was not angry, petty, or reactionary. The Reagan of ’79 could not pass today’s primary purity test.

Those in the base demanding strict conservative orthodoxy also favor the most shrill, independent-voter-alienating candidates in the field. They should take heart of Reagan’s basic lesson: people will be more open to conservative views when they are delivered with a smile.

Lawdawg86 on May 12, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Oh boy, let’s all get behind the “man” the media has selected for the GOP…

Freelancer on May 12, 2011 at 12:05 PM

And Br’er Rabbit said, “Please don’t thro me into that Briar Patch, anything but that.” They did and the rabbit escaped.

jeffn21 on May 12, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Hey Petunia,

I have no problem with your words. But I’m curious. Can you find words from Gov. Palin that are designed to make “enemies, not friends”? Because I believe that what we have here is you believing the narrative about her more than listening to what she actually says. Whoever is most capable of accurately portraying the faults of the left, and who suggests better answers for those problems, will always be the most villified. Conversely, those Republicans who are least threatening to the socialists will always be presented in a favorable light, right up until the end of the primary season.

Freelancer on May 12, 2011 at 12:22 PM

petunia on May 12, 2011 at 11:55 AM

If you “mindlessly bash” Palin, constantly, continuously, I stop taking you seriously.

…Already leftists refuse to label anyone who is nice, as a conservative.

LOL See, I can’t take you seriously, at all.

Fallon on May 12, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Anybody hear about Huntsman until a few months ago? Makes you wonder who is pushing this nobody and why.

clearbluesky on May 12, 2011 at 10:41 AM

Yep — my 1st question has always been who? Huntsman… who is he.

Dasher on May 12, 2011 at 12:54 PM

Huntswho?

We know who they fear…………….and it wears a skirt.

PappyD61 on May 12, 2011 at 1:22 PM

This is exactly how the left and the far right combined to ruin the reputation of the Republican Party in the past and now they are doing the same thing to the term “Conservative”.

“Conservative” is becoming a dirty word that only applies to closed-minded, unreasonable people.

Already leftists refuse to label anyone who is nice, as a conservative. Someone with a conservative record–but who is nice, is a moderate. Because in their view there are no nice conservatives.
And if you look at the people on Hot Air you probably can see they have a point.

petunia on May 12, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Please tell me you don’t believe that.

So, in other words, we have to play nice so that they like us. How’s that been working out for you?

Didn’t “conservatives” play nice and send The Good Candidate That Everyone Liked out there in 2008? That worked out well, didn’t it?

I’ll tell you a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy secret just between you and me. You alone? Good. Ready? These people don’t care if the liberals and mindless “independents” like them. They want their country back without staggering debt, an out of control economy and a mickey mouse foreign policy. If that means continuing to not be liked, but having results, I think most of these people are good with that. Oh, and the media will never be nice to conservatives no matter what or who we choose as our leader. They’d hate Gandhi if he came back from the dead as a conservative. We’ve figured this one out too.

Now don’t tell anyone I told you these secrets. Appreciate.

kim roy on May 12, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Huntswho?

We know who they fear…………….and it wears a skirt.

PappyD61 on May 12, 2011 at 1:22 PM

You betcha.

davidk on May 12, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Oh, please. They attack who they fear and support those they do not. In 2008, they feared McCain and he lost to the weakest candidate since Walter Mondale.

Hopeless Future on May 12, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Remember the last centristy maverick the GOP ran? McCain got his clock cleaned. MSM setting the stage for Barry O re-election by pushing this falsehood. The MSM must have something “good” to unload on Huntsman since they want him nominated.

generouse on May 12, 2011 at 2:42 PM

“Top Democrats: Huntsman is the Republican we fear most”

He’s encroaching on our territory! –Dems

dominigan on May 12, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Since demonrats are incapable of the truth,Huntsman being feared is an absolute lie and nothing else. For dims to openly demonstrate their disdain for republican intelligence is insanity at best.

volsense on May 12, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Oh yeah, well, Henry Waxman is the Democrat we fear most. Please, please don’t primary him and run him against our GOP candidate.

hawkdriver on May 12, 2011 at 3:11 PM

I am a fiscal conservative because I believe that Government, like individuals, should live within their means, even if that means cutting spending.

I am a social conservative because I believe that guilty criminals should be punished (with the death penalty if warranted) and that innocent life should be protected (pro-life).

I am a Constitutional conservative because I believe that the Law of the Land should be upheld, and interpreted with the clear meaning of its words as viewed through the lens of our Founding Fathers’ ideals at the time of its writing. If you don’t like the law, change it, but don’t ignore it or refuse to enforce it.

Finally, I am Patriot conservative because I believe in the cause of freedom, and that Government is a necessary evil that tends to expand and take away my right to prosper.

I am a fan of Palin because I have read her policy writings, studied her past actions, and listened to her speaches, …and find that her views most closely mirror my conservative views. This is why I enthusiastically support her!

You are not conservative. You are Palin fans. That does not make you conservative that makes you groupies. You aren’t even close to conservative, you believe in a person, not an ideology.

petunia on May 11, 2011 at 10:45 PM

The last time I saw this much foaming at the mouth, ‘Ol Yeller was being put down with rabies…

dominigan on May 12, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Can we get a new Romney thread, please?

“Romney: If I Apologized For Passing RomneyCare ‘It Wouldn’t Be Honest’”

How ’bout this one, Mitt: If I said I would vote for you, it wouldn’t be honest.

alwaysfiredup on May 12, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Reagan was more socially moderate, then either many on the right, and left for that matter, would like to admit.

As a cnadidate and as president, Reagan was staunchly pro-life, at a time when being pro-life wasn’t quite as cool. That in itself would get him tagged as an out-of-touch so-con wacko in today’s environment. This co-opt effort by moderates as regards Reagan is really just too much.

He was also not a polarizing figure like a couple of the GOP candidates are, and was able to steal away Dem votes.

firepilot on May 12, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Reagan continues to be a polarizing figure. What he understood, and why he won two landslide victories, is that the fact of the “polarity” in this country is majority-conservative. Republican moderates seem to think that the breakdown in the country is 40% liberal and maybe 20% conservative at best, while it’s the other way around. He didn’t have to bend over backwards to please independents; he drew them in.

pseudoforce on May 12, 2011 at 4:10 PM

He didn’t have to bend over backwards to please independents; he drew them in.

pseudoforce on May 12, 2011 at 4:10 PM

And that was indeed the secret to his success. Yes, Sarah Palin has that ability, too.

BetseyRoss on May 12, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Nice try a$$holes !!!! LMAO!!!!

….

We know who you really fear the most, you show it every time you attack HER !

cableguy615 on May 12, 2011 at 7:21 PM

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

drunyan8315 on May 12, 2011 at 8:13 PM

Who??

DanaSmiles on May 13, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Seriously…do they think this is going to work ?

CCRWM on May 11, 2011 at 8:18 PM

It doesn’t need to work for us…all they need to do is identify the right ‘loser’ when primary season begins, to ensure D’s and I’s take him to the vangaurd position, leaving us no choice (both in the primaries & the general).

Who gives a sh!t about us? Apparently, not even the RNC, who could’ve closed these years ago. Or are they afraid of closing the ‘big tent’ out of fear we won’t select a RINO?

Miss_Anthrope on May 13, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Sorry, vanguard…ack, Fridays!

Miss_Anthrope on May 13, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Funny….He is the Republican I FEAR the most too!

SDarchitect on May 13, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Top Democrats: Huntsman is the Republican we fear most

And the New York Times will dutifully rave about what a great Republican he is.

Been there, done that, you losers.

I WILL NOT VOTE RINO IN 2012.

disa on May 11, 2011 at 11:07 PM

Exactly. The demoncrats want to steer the conservative voters to the one they know won’t be a problem for Obama to beat, or at least one that they know they can work with cajole into doing their bidding.
Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us. Let’s not let it happen again.

Sterling Holobyte on May 13, 2011 at 4:39 PM

I was a Democrat all my life, until the DNC cheated and rigged the primaries to ‘install’ Obama (because we should have a Black president on our resume). I am now an Independent and the problem is that I don’t think the DNC fears any of the Republican candidates. Obama would be toast if the RNC would run a viable candidate, but none of the ‘top tier’ are doing it for me. Daniels and Huntsman are less bad than the rest, but please make Christie run.

freckleface on May 14, 2011 at 8:56 AM

Huntsman 2012 = McCain 2008
DON’T FALL FOR IT AGAIN!

n0doz on May 15, 2011 at 9:15 AM

Comment pages: 1 2