Who’s responsible for Huntsman flameout?

posted at 8:50 am on January 16, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

I mean apart from the candidate himself, of course, who strode through the Republican primary process like an long-jilted boyfriend attending the wedding of a high-school sweetheart trying to prove that the bride was making a terrible mistake.  It didn’t take long for consensus to form online as to who gets the blame, both for Jon Huntsman’s failure and for convincing Huntsman to make a fool of himself in the first place.  Ben Smith at BuzzFeed says to look no further than John McCain’s old campaign adviser, John Weaver:

Weaver, a rangy, 52-year old Texan has a storied and controversial career in Republican politics, and now an uncertain future. And the Huntsman campaign is the latest and purest version of a strategy that he’s been pressing since he was at John McCain’s right hand in 2000: A Republican campaign that embraces the mainstream media, sets itself against elements of conservative dogma, and builds a coalition of moderate Republicans and independents that – if it could only survive the primary – would be formidable in a general election. The campaign’s birth in baroque intrigue and its high-level infighting are also Weaver signatures.

“You get a lot of good out of the guy, you get a lot of brilliance out of the guy – but you get a lot of dysfunction out of the guy,” a Republican who has often worked with Weaver said Sunday night, after the news of Huntsman’s departure had broken. Members of Huntsman’s family blame what they saw as a debacle on Weaver, the Republican said. “It’s really going to get ugly.”

To Weaver’s critics, he’s a “Svengali,” as one said, persuading a wealthy, talented former governor to blow his money and his name on a lost cause. To his admirers, Weaver had the right strategy — to nip Romney in New Hampshire – and a message that would have made Huntsman formidable in November, and was let down by the candidate and his wealthy father.

“This should have been a well-funded campaign,” said a Weaver ally. “There was no reason this should be a penniless campaign.” (Weaver’s June monthly retainer from Huntsman was $20,000; it had declined to $14,500 by fall, according to the most recently financial disclosure report, filed in October.)

It wasn’t the funding that was the problem.  It was the fact that Republicans got the clear message from Huntsman and the campaign that the candidate really didn’t like Republicans.  Huntsman didn’t hide his disdain during the debates, and Weaver made that an explicit message for the campaign:

But the core complaint about Weaver’s strategy – which seems to have matched Huntsman’s own views – is that the consultant was running for the nomination of a party whose leaders and members he seemed to view at times with disdain.

“”There’s a simple reason our party is nowhere near being a national governing party,” Weaver told Esquire in June. “No one wants to be around a bunch of cranks.”

Conservatives obviously disagree.  First, the GOP did pretty well in 2010 without much help from either Weaver or Huntsman, flipping more House seats in a midterm election than any other in the last 72 years.  Second, we tried the Democrat Lite approach from 2001-6, and it resulted in significant growth in spending and regulation and the loss of both chambers of Congress to actual Democrats.

As far as dysfunction, that was apparent to the very end.  How did the senior staff find out about Huntsman’s decision?  One had to hear it from a Romney adviser:

Huntsman decided “days ago” — shortly after the New Hampshire primary — that he would not go on with his campaign, according to a high-level source close to the campaign.

Senior staffers in South Carolina say the campaign struggled to get Huntsman to campaign in the state following his third-place finish in New Hampshire. They say the campaign had no infrastructure in the state and suffered from lack of resources and communication issues. Not even signs had arrived yet from New Hampshire. Many volunteers had no work assigned to them. …

NBC’s Garrett Haakereports that Huntsman’s campaign advance director was told the candidate was dropping out by a Romney staffer, who had been told by an NBC reporter minutes earlier. According to that Romney staffer, Huntsman campaign staff were at the debate walk through (there’s a debate tomorrow night) asking “real” questions and were seemingly fully involved.

Much, if not all, of the Romney campaign team was also unaware — despite Huntsman endorsing him tomorrow. The campaign’s political director, for example, found out via a news alert.

David Freddoso has it correct.  The next Republican who hires John Weaver should be considered to have conducted an act of self-identification as unelectable and unsupportable.


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

Comment pages: 1 2

Perfect summation of the thinking in the GOP. He worked for Obama. That’s an unpardonable offense.

But Raising taxes as gov of MA? Increased spending by 30% as gov of MA? Romneycare? Gun ban? Pro-abortion? Meh, what’s the big deal? Romney’s the next Reagan donthca know?

angryed on January 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM

I don’t like Romney either. But that doesn’t make Horatio Huntsman any more appealing.

Naturally Curly on January 16, 2012 at 10:08 AM

“Members of Huntsman’s family blame what they saw as a debacle on Weaver, the Republican said. “It’s really going to get ugly.”

Ahem, wasn’t Huntsman the one responsible for hiring Weaver? He has no one but himself to blame.

herm2416 on January 16, 2012 at 10:09 AM

I’ll stick with my original theory. Its hard to properly brand something or in this case someone when they are constantly changing their first name.

Bmore on January 16, 2012 at 10:10 AM

I don’t like Romney either. But that doesn’t make Horatio Huntsman any more appealing.

Naturally Curly on January 16, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Huntsman has a more conservative record than Romney, so he is actually slightly more appealing. He’s also not tied to Obamacare and so might have actually been open to pressure from the base to repeal it.

Doomberg on January 16, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Hey we aren’t sane in the Republican party so why ask us why he didn’t win.

tomas on January 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Pork-Chop on January 16, 2012 at 9:10 AM
Mr. Arkadin on January 16, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Good speculative work. History might prove you right.

Dextrous on January 16, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Huntsman’s campaign was DOA because that arrival event in which he tried to claim Reagan’s mantle was a disaster. Limbaugh destroyed Huntsman and showed him to be a “pale pastel” in comparison with Reagan’s “bold colors” in this segment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3BIKn-OAQQ

DaveyNC on January 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Being a climate change acolyte didn’t help much either.

workingclass artist on January 16, 2012 at 9:32 AM

And yet, Romney’s the presumptive nominee:

Romney on global warming:

Romney flip-flopping on global warming:

*facepalms*

Aizen on January 16, 2012 at 10:21 AM

I don’t like Romney either. But that doesn’t make Horatio Huntsman any more appealing.

Naturally Curly on January 16, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Romney is terrible and he won’t win the general election. Huntsman’s record as governor is much better and Huntsman mostly adopted the Ryan plan. But, Huntsman ran as being opposed to conservatives and conservatism. That simply demonstrates that Huntsman had no idea what he was doing and is not too bright politically. And, it probably reveals that he is a lot like Romney – no real ideology just whatever is convenient. It is pretty easy to govern as a conservative in Utah. So he did that.

The GOP has taken what should be a banner year for itself and turned it into crap. W/ Romney at the top of the ticket, we are going to struggle to win a majority in the Senate and struggle not to lose seats in the house. And, unless the economy gets worse than it is right now, Obama will win reelection. Romney is a terrible candidate. He is winning the primary b/c all the others are even worse candidates, plus Romney has the most money and has been running for 5 years. But he is still a terrible candidate. I’m not even talking about his having no ideology here, but simply about his virtue as a candidate. He has none. No charisma, lousy at attack ads, lousy at responding to attacks. He still has not given any theme to why he is running. After 5 years of campaigning, nobody knows what he believes or what his priorities will be.

Obamacare is now set in stone. We will be lucky to have 51 senators, which means Obamacare won’t be repealed (and Romney will never use political capital to that end if elected anyway). Which means, the liberals have won. the Federal gov’t now has authority to regulate everything in the name of health care costs. The commerce clause means every breath can be regulated.

Monkeytoe on January 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Why should Republicans get excited about the electibility of Huntsman, a candidate who apparently hires staff who think “There’s a simple reason our party is nowhere near being a national governing party,” Weaver told Esquire in June. “No one wants to be around a bunch of cranks.”

Whether he worked for BO or not soesn’t matter. He shouldn’t be surprised that the voters he thinks are beneath him aren’t interested in having him be their standard bearer.

katiejane on January 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

I’m all for piling on Weaver, but let’s face it: Huntsman showed in the debates and speeches that he’s a 3rd tier talent. Had he followed another strategy – running as a conservative highlighting his record on Utah – he’d still be a non-factor because he simply lacks charisma. He’d be like a lesser version of Pawlenty with the ability to speak in Chinese.

joana on January 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Charisma isn’t everything. Romney has the charisma of a Ken doll, and Ron Paul has the charisma of a cranky old man who supports Iran’s right to go nuclear. That these two are doing so well is something I never would have predicted.

If Huntsman had actually run on his record and said something nice about the Republican base, I think he would have gotten his 15 minutes of attention as a non-Romney. He might well be a factor in this race instead of “Huntsman who?”

Gladtobehere on January 16, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Candidates’ records are usually the absolute last thing in peoples’ minds when they vote. When I talk to people, this is what I find, in decreasing order of importance:

1. How they look on TV, and how they sound and come across
2. What the MSM says about them
2b. Scandals
3. Who the party tells me to vote for
4. Whether I really hate the other party’s candidate
5. Whether I think candidate X can win
(a very distant) 6. Their actual record of legislation/governance

Doomberg on January 16, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Sadly you are correct.

angryed on January 16, 2012 at 10:32 AM

You gotta have ignition in order to flameout. Huntsman was towed to low altitude and released. He’s been dead sticking the whole way, catching an occasional light updraft. The glider ride is over.

Fletch54 on January 16, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Flameout? Dude never caught fire.

steebo77 on January 16, 2012 at 10:35 AM

At this rate you must not expect to be here long.

Huntsmans repeated insults directed at both republicans and conservatives in particular don’t even factor in on your home world do they?

He threw it away by running from his conservative record like it was a disease, and you can’t see that?

mark81150 on January 16, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Dude, look at the RECORDS. Huntsman RECORD is solid. Romney’s record is to the left of Obama.

Why do you people insist on overlooking records and relying on campaign rhetoric? Do you really think what someone says is more valid than what they did?

angryed on January 16, 2012 at 9:43 AM

So your argument is,… ignore what he’s saying now, since it’s just a canard to get elected?

He’s insulting, repudiating us, but that’s ok, because he once governed as a conservative in a state where that was expected if not the default setting?

When, do you suppose we can start paying attention to his statements again?

That’s a hell of a way to pick candidates you have, pick the one running against his own party the hadest? Really?

My God, that’s way past nutz… your only purpose here seems to be disrupt, insult, rant, rinse, repeat..

Because when a guy tells me, pick this guy, because his insulting you and everything you believe is all a huge lie to get elected,.. He’s the dead last guy I’ll ask for anything.

Did Huntsman tell you in person he’s a stealth conservative, or did you figger this out by yerself?

That’s the worst defense I’ve ever heard,.. he didn’t mean it, he’s just lying to get elected…

uh huh,….

mark81150 on January 16, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Who’s responsible you ask with unabashed innocence. I’ll tell ya who’s responsible. Imagine just before lunch on a lovely Thursday afternoon you begin to feel hope for your campaign at long last only to be tweeted a link to an article titled ‘Huntman’s desperate bid for relevancy’ by a rival campaign. Talk about a kick to the balls. Have you no shame?

RepubChica on January 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

John Mccain … The venereal disease that keeps on giving.

moochy on January 16, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Huntsman knew all about john weaver, since he was McCain’s man, and huntsman was a fund raiser for McCain. So it isn’t like he didn’t know him and he had to know what weaver did to Sarah.

Why in the world would anyone with any smarts hire this “gun for hire?”
I agree, anyone who hires this idiot should be immediately discounted as a serious Republican candidate.

Bambi on January 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM

“To his admirers, Weaver had the right strategy — to nip Romney in New Hampshire – and a message that would have made Huntsman formidable in November

You got to admire a guy whose strategy is the same as almost everyone’s every election year, not to mention, to have a message that makes the candidate formidable.

And they paid him for this? D’oh!

”There’s a simple reason our party is nowhere near being a national governing party,” Weaver told Esquire in June. “No one wants to be around a bunch of cranks.”

Owning the House being within 4 seats of owning the Senate, with prospects to make large gains in November and a good chance to take the Presidency is nowhere near?

Not only was he disdainful, he’s stupidful.

Dusty on January 16, 2012 at 10:50 AM

mark81150 on January 16, 2012 at 10:38 AM

I’ll try again, 3rd grade style for you.

Huntsman is a conservative with a proven conservative record. He is campaigning as a moderate.

Romney is a liberal with a proven liberal record. He is campaigning as a conservative.

Tell me if I went too fast for you again. I’m trying to dumb it down to Sean Hannity listener level but I don’t know if I can.

angryed on January 16, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I do not accept the premise of the question. There was never a Huntsman flame. He had no fuel source with conservatives and his Benedict-ish time with the Obummer admin did him no favors either.

LaughterJones on January 16, 2012 at 10:53 AM

mark81150 on January 16, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Please, refer me to a bill, or whatever that actually reduced the tax bill in Utah? Also, the wonderful health care that he instituted in Utah. I haven’t seen it.

He was for vouchers, but apparently didn’t support them very loudly, because they went down in flames. (Sorry to say).
Apparently, he got bored with his gov’s job and so let it be known to the obama admin that he would be a great fit and spoke Manderin.
Thus his glowing letter to obama.

Weaver did a horrible job in McCain’s campaign. I’m sure he saw someone in Huntsman, with lots of money and he could experiment and see if he couldn’t get him elected.

Bambi on January 16, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Who’s responsible?
I blame his cult church leaders. They wanted him to clear a path for Romney.

multiuseless on January 16, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Who was responsible?

That guy Jon Huntsman sees in the mirror everyday.

If that guy couldn’t get his act together, there was no way that he was going anywhere… it is an example of cluelessness in action.

ajacksonian on January 16, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Huntsman just ran for the wrong party’s nomination. if he had ran in the party that more closely matched his idealogy he would have won that party’s nomination easily.

paulsur on January 16, 2012 at 10:57 AM

I’m trying to dumb it down to Sean Hannity listener level but I don’t know if I can.

Please don’t do that. It’s like p***ing in the gene pool.

You’re a Great American by the way, thank you for everything, God Bless you, Sarah Palin Bless you, and yeah Great American.

/puke

CorporatePiggy on January 16, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I guess conservatism just isn’t ready for a snotty liberal Mandarin-speaking trust fund baby who hates conservatives.

Cicero43 on January 16, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Huntsman is a conservative with a proven conservative record. He is campaigning as a moderate.

Romney is a liberal with a proven liberal record. He is campaigning as a conservative.

Tell me if I went too fast for you again. I’m trying to dumb it down to Sean Hannity listener level but I don’t know if I can.

angryed on January 16, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I see why you like Huntsman – you’re obviously a fan of bashing a huge chunk of the conservative population. Maybe you should run for president for no apparent reason!

updog on January 16, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Who’s responsible for Huntsman flameout? “Flameout”? When was there ever a flame?

DANEgerus on January 16, 2012 at 11:31 AM

john weaver is partially to blame but the main blame goes on huntsman.

i remember the very first article i read about huntsman, it was on another website and it was a while before he jumped into the race!! when i first heard about him, i already thought, it would be so stupid if he ran for pres, he wouldn’t win. and here we are now, the guy is dropping out. so i saw this coming BEFORE he jumped in. i was actually surprised to first hear that he was getting in the race…

this quote below explains his problem. he’s a liberal-lite who is conceited and condescending, thinking he’s smarter and better than conservatives. i can’t stand him.

Especially early on, Huntsman acted like he thought Republicans were the problem, and the fact that he presented himself as a supposedly “better kind” of Republican seemed to show that he was looking at things from a MSNBC-style perspective. He seemed to want to go out of his way to distance himself from the Tea Party and those angry with Obama. Rather than validate voters’ anger with Obama or show that he understood it, Huntsman seemed to accept as true the left’s caricatures of conservatives, who he almost seemed to be running against. He also sounded and looked too much like Mr. Rogers and kissed up to Obama.

bluegill on January 16, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Sachiko on January 16, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Tell me if I went too fast for you again. I’m trying to dumb it down to Sean Hannity listener level but I don’t know if I can.

angryed on January 16, 2012 at 10:51 AM

At what point Mr. no reading skillz… did I offer support for Romney?

Go ahead,.. show me where I gave one tiny little speck of support, otherwise, grow the F*** up would you..

I’m simply stating what everyone else is mostly,.. Huntsman sucked as a candidate,. and you in your full blown troll mode, are calling everyone stupid for not ignoring his words, because he had an tolerable record in Utah.

Of course I wouldn’t know, since he chose not to run on that..

He ran on the “let’s all be civil and by the way, I really really respect the president” campaign..

and you call Hannity listeners stupid?

buy a honkin mirror, then mail it to Huntsman.. then you’ll both see what stupid is.

the difference between us is,.. I’d say this to your face,.. but I doubt you would.. a name like Angryed fits the troll profile someone was kind enough to share with me a few days ago.. Thanks again for that by the way..

I’d spot you twenty points, and still beat your IQ, I know what mine is, and that you resort to baiting says you got no skillz.. or you’d have something to say besides shouting stupid when challenged.

mark81150 on January 16, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Huntsman would be a great secretary of state…

rubberneck on January 16, 2012 at 11:45 AM

and you know what? all you who are trying to defend this pathetic loser by going on about how he was such a good solid conservative blah blah blah, well maybe he should have acted like it instead of acting more like a liberal.

oh yeah, and of course working for the whole “remarkable leader” obama bothered me too. oh but he’s such a good conservative or whatever!!!!

Sachiko on January 16, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Huntsman flamed out because this process has become a reality show/debating contest.

He didn’t pick the right “persona” for the little dog and pony debate show, so he got crushed.

Never mind that he (like Perry) has an actual solid record as an actual governor– these things apparently don’t count any more.

Never mind that a completely unlikeable, cranky jerk like Santorum with no executive record of governing, and a horrible RINOesque Senate record, is somehow now the most electable conservative alt to Romney?

This primary has turned into a joke. I blame the ridiculous debate format for turning this into a reality show instead of an analysis of actual records

thurman on January 16, 2012 at 11:51 AM

In order to flame out don’t you have to flame to begin with?…..Oh wait never mind he’s a Mormon its implied.

Your Mamma loves me on January 16, 2012 at 12:03 PM

oh yeah, and of course working for the whole “remarkable leader” obama bothered me too. oh but he’s such a good conservative or whatever!!!!

Sachiko on January 16, 2012 at 11:45 AM

agreed, but careful my friend,.. Angryed might call you a Hannity listener too….

One mustn’t speak ill of the liberals favorites.. ed doesn’t like it.

mark81150 on January 16, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Who’s responsible for Huntsman’s flameout? Huntsman. And no other.

And BTW, why isn’t this guy a Democrat? Isn’t that what a “liberal and moderate coalition” is all about?

Scriptor on January 16, 2012 at 12:18 PM

What am I missing? When did Huntsman flame in?

kozmocostello on January 16, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Huntsman is a conservative with a proven conservative record. He is campaigning as a moderate.

Romney is a liberal with a proven liberal record. He is campaigning as a conservative.

angryed on January 16, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Bingo! It didn’t help that Huntsman spent the better part of his campaign bashing conservatives. He has a much more conservative record than Romney, and yet Romney wins the Tea Party vote in NH. It’s all about perception.

ncconservative on January 16, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Who’s responsible for Huntsman flameout?

Is this a trick question ?

BigSven on January 16, 2012 at 12:26 PM

The reason conservatives think this apparently conservative governor was running in the wrong primary was because seemed to look down his nose at the very voters he needed. He sounded like an elitist academic, arguing that our national problems were a result of a deficit of “trust,” trust in our institutions, when the last thing we need is “trust” in the Puppet President and his Marxist friends and advisors. Not once did I hear him criticize Barak Hussein Obama and the disastrous course he has embarked upon. But then, he worked for the Obama administration, didn’t he?”

MrLynn on January 16, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Huntsman flamed out because this process has become a reality show/debating contest.

He didn’t pick the right “persona” for the little dog and pony debate show, so he got crushed.

Never mind that he (like Perry) has an actual solid record as an actual governor– these things apparently don’t count any more.

Never mind that a completely unlikeable, cranky jerk like Santorum with no executive record of governing, and a horrible RINOesque Senate record, is somehow now the most electable conservative alt to Romney?

This primary has turned into a joke. I blame the ridiculous debate format for turning this into a reality show instead of an analysis of actual records

thurman on January 16, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Right on. With the exception of Paul, the candidates that have risen and fallen seem to be the ones that can generate the most applause lines. That’s obviously not Huntsman’s forte. But what he lacked in charisma he (should have) made up with substance. Huntsman’s economic plan is much bolder than Romney’s and he also supported Paul Ryan’s plan. Yes he had his share of apostasies, but if we were looking for a more conservative candidate on record and on substance, without the baggage, Huntsman was that candidate. With that said, I DEFINITELY don’t blame conservatives for tuning him out. They were simply returning the favor. He’s an idiot. You don’t run in a primary and attack the people that make up the majority of voters. I don’t even recall McCain (circa 2008) being that stupid. I blame Huntsman more than anyone, but I do see John Weaver’s fingerprints all over his campaign strategy.

ncconservative on January 16, 2012 at 12:45 PM

The Huntsman family backed Dirty Harry Reid, Huntsman worked for the Obama administration in China and look what that got us, and Huntsman praised the lying failure in the white house.

Why would anyone back Huntsman? This election people are not going to vote for who the media tells them to. Due to the mess that Obama has made of the economy, people are more aware of the importance of doing their own research and making up their own minds. Yes, there are still the mindless freeloaders who will vote for the Food Stamp Pres., and the loony left, but the liar-n-chief now has a record and it isn’t good.

jqc1970 on January 16, 2012 at 12:51 PM

“Romney is terrible and he won’t win the general election.
Monkeytoe on January 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM”

A monkey hooked on meth will beat Obama at this point! Stop the defeatist nonsense, he is not my choice, but people will sigh a breath of relief once Obama leaves office.

Africanus on January 16, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Pork-Chop on January 16, 2012 at 9:10 AM

My thoughts, too, as it worked so well for John McCain to get the nomination. And, the end result was a win for Obama. Or, it would so fracture the GOP and Huntsman would fracture the Romney vote to ensure Romney would go down first. I think Obama gambled on Huntsman taking the Romney vote as he could not take the social-conservative vote. Huntsman was a straddle the fence of Moderate Fiscal/Social Conservative.

All in hoping to splinter the Romney vote. I do not see Huntsman taking the votes from any of the other Candidates even if a Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie or Haley Barber were to be in the ‘hunt’ so to speak.

uhangtight on January 16, 2012 at 12:54 PM

I wonder where the 10 votes that Huntsman got from Morning Joe watchers will go?

Decoski on January 16, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Easy but true answer – Huntman is responsible – his ideas, policies, personality. Next!

lukjuj on January 16, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Flameout?

There wasn’t even any warmth in his campaign, much less flames.

On the other hand, the entire slate of candidates sucks so much that there never will be any chance for combustion.

LegendHasIt on January 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Contrary to what the Mitt-haters think, Obama wanted to run against a conservative whom he could have painted as a Bush clone. Had there been a stronger conservative in the race; had Paul not come out of nowhere to double his support from previous races; had Romney not improved so dramatically from 2008; and had Huntsman not sucked balls as a candidate, he could have peeled off enough of Mitt’s support to get a Bush III nominated. Instead, the conservative field ended up a fragmented pack of losers, Paul became a real factor, Huntsman was a record in search of a candidate, and Romney consolidated support early. After failing the New Hampshire test, there was no reason for Huntsman to continue, and he bailed.

I’d like to know what Huntsman was promised by the Obama machine for his efforts. The VP slot?

Mr. Arkadin on January 16, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Well, Mr. Arkadin, Romney’s a liberal Rockefeller Republican, always has been, always will be. And, when he stings the Republican frogs during the river crossing of this election, you’ll have no excuse for not knowing his true nature.

ebrown2 on January 16, 2012 at 5:19 PM

A monkey hooked on meth will beat Obama at this point! Stop the defeatist nonsense, he is not my choice, but people will sigh a breath of relief once Obama leaves office.

Africanus on January 16, 2012 at 12:52 PM

A “monkey hooked on meth” will be a more viable candidate than Romney, that’s the problem.

ebrown2 on January 16, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Flameout? When was he flamed on? I always had the sense nobody knew why the hell he was bothering to run at all; nobody trusted him because he worked for Obama and he seemed like an annoying weirdo anyway. So, meh. Simon Huntsman is out. Evs.

austinnelly on January 16, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Rumplestiltskin Huntsman is responsible for his own down fall.

The Nerve on January 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM

I mean apart from the candidate himself, of course, who strode through the Republican primary process like an long-jilted boyfriend attending the wedding of a high-school sweetheart trying to prove that the bride was making a terrible mistake.

That may just be the best description I’ve ever read of Huntsman’s campaign.

tom on January 16, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2