SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Huntsman Death Wa--Oh, Why Bother?

JONATHAN CHAIT JUNE 23, 2011

Huntsman Death Wa--Oh, Why Bother?

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

It's probably not worth my time to keep arguing about Jon Huntsman's political viability, but I notice that in New Hampshire, the state that's the cornerstone of his nomination strategy, he's got a favorability rating of 14%, with 36% unfavorable. That's abysmal. The problem isn't that it's low, per se, but that it's so lopsided against him.

Matt Bai thinks those of us dismissing Huntsman's odds bear some grudge against him. I certainly don't. I hope Huntsman wins the nomination. He might even be a good president. Conceivably, he could gain some Republican support for things like cap and trade that Republicans would never support if proposed by Obama. But the fact that he's attractive to non-conservative political reporters does not overcome the fact that he's ideologically marginal within his party.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 18 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

18 comments

He'd be declared a RINO, tarred and feathered, then excommunicated from the GOP if it weren't for the tradition of using kid gloves against any candidate for president.

- GSpinks

June 23, 2011 at 10:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Look at the motorcross ads, and his oh so flat speech in front of the Statue of Liberty, I have to wonder if he even trying in any real sense and is instead just putting his name out there for next time or the time after.

- MikeB.

June 23, 2011 at 10:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Or just trying to squeeze out Mitt for some reason, which he would do if he even got 5% of the primary vote. By so doing he helps cause the nomination of a right winger. They lose the election badly and by 2016 have decided they need to nominate a moderate pragmatist such as himself. They usually nominate somebody who has run before.

- stanmvp48

June 23, 2011 at 10:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Stanmvp48 gets it. BTW, nice shout-out to The Man from Donora, PA.

- wildboy

June 23, 2011 at 10:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is so odd. The Republican candidates come, they stand up, they talk for awhile, they shoot themselves in the foot one way or another, and they go. Again and again. Except for Newt, who just keeps shooting himself in the foot and insisting he won't go. And the Republican Party is so fragmented, perfectionistic, and unrealistic, that rising above 20% favorability makes you a front-runner. For awhile. Until you say something practical, everyone turns on you, and somebody else becomes the front-runner. For awhile. And Obama really wants to compromise with these people? Why?

- AllanL5

June 23, 2011 at 10:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jon Huntsman is either (1) Deluded (2) Is going to run a quixotic campaign in 2012 and knows it or (3) Is positioning himself for a run in 2016.

- liberalref

June 23, 2011 at 11:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It would be nice if this was a start of some reinvention of the Republican Party, moving them more toward the middle, away from the lunatic right-wing. Though I don't think the Koch Brothers and Mr. Ailes would support that sort of thing.

- AllanL5

June 23, 2011 at 11:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I certainly don't. I hope Huntsman wins the nomination. He might even be a good president" I absolutely agree, and if, God help us all, Obama does lose I pray it's to Huntsman, as unlikely as it is that Huntsman would ever get the nom. Obama has been accused, ad nauseum, of caving in to the gop, caving in to big business/big defense/big anything that has allowed him to be pushed ever rightward from where we thought he might be in our imaginings that we were getting a truly center left progressive. But while I think there's certaiknly some merit to occasional criticism on this theme, I continue to beleive Obama's mission domestically, the single driving motivation behind what he envisions his Presidency to be, is to bring to very disparate sides closer together. He's intelligent enough by far to realize this ultimately may fail, even if much of the specific agenda goals are met, but I think there's ample evidence that points to his unyielding mission to continue this grand ambition of solving - or beginning to solve - this terrible schism our nation has fallen into. Huntsman would continue this, more so than any other gop candidate. Perhaps the answer to our problems, from a 30,000 ft view anyway, is to first bring together the two warring camps our country has divided itself into, and then meaningful change can begin to take place. (yeah yeah, I know... "and if you believe that, Tristan, I have a unicorn ranch I'd like you to invest in").

- Tristan

June 23, 2011 at 11:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Unicorn derivatives, tristan.

- roidbouloi

June 23, 2011 at 11:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tristan, yes Obama's goal seems to be to bring separate sides together. Unfortunately that's his goal regardless of the respective merits of the two sides. And as a result the very moderate liberal policy proposals must give way 50/50 or even 40/60 (to get a compromise) with heard core right wing, tea party policy proposals. My reluctant view is that Obama has elevated process over policy largely because he has no core policy views. As a result, he has done something that no politician should do -- he has abandoned his base.

- PeteBeck

June 23, 2011 at 11:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You want to bring the two sides closer together? Then implement good Keynesian policies, restore the Clinton tax-rates (like Clinton did in HIS first two years), WITHSTAND the howls of protest from the Tea-Party, wait 4 years for those policies to bear fruit. Once unemployment is at 6% and the budget is balanced or closer to being balanced, THEN use your 4 years of success as a good example. SOME Republicans will continue to cling to Supply-Side and refuse to compromise no matter what -- ignore them. SOME Republicans will be pragmatic enough to let go of dogma -- work with them. In any case, America will be better off. Without that, the schism and difference of opinion between the Democratic Keynesian and the Republican Tea-Party Supply-Side "just cut taxes more" crowd is so great, any "agreement" will be at the point of disaster.

- AllanL5

June 23, 2011 at 11:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

HUH? "I hope Huntsman wins the nomination. He might even be a good president." Come on... This is the New Republic. Don't be so naive. If he wins, the Congress remains right-wing. And the US continues to resemble the Gilded Age class-wise and far worse economically.

- hkaye

June 23, 2011 at 12:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree that it's probably a waste of time to do the whole "Huntsman Death Watch." I propose, rather, that you do an analysis of who is wrong more often between Matt Bai and Karl Rove.

- Jonas

June 23, 2011 at 1:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hkaye - ok, try not to take things TOO out of context, my friend. As I'm sure you're aware, SOMEONE is going to win the gop nomination. That someone should, for the health of the republic, be...what's the word again? Oh yeah. SANE. We're best served not by the most batshit crazy person in the running being given the nomination opposite to our President, as humorous as it may be, but by the best qualified person to actually BE President. I'm still convinced that's Huntman. Please note that by "best qualified" in this context I am mostly just going on "most moderate comparable the pack of coconuts currently hijacking the party" and not with regards to any specific policy initiatives. As for "Congress remains right-wing", your statement implies that an Obama victory would somehow intrinsically be part and parcel with Congress being other-than-right-wing. I'm not sure I follow your logic.

- Tristan

June 23, 2011 at 1:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roid.... LOL. Derivitives indeed, my friend. hahahaha

- Tristan

June 23, 2011 at 1:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah I'm not convinced that nominating a moderate would be good for the country. If people got the silly idea that the R's are somehow mainstream or that there's still a reasonable number of moderates left in the party it will give them credibility. Moreover, Bush II started as "acceptable" and wound up disasterous. I have very little reason to believe that a GOP politician wouldn't morph into his or her Mr. Hyde personality once in office considering that the solid majority of them have gone back on moderate positions in order to cater to the loons off the starboard bow. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. And remember - you're not just getting Huntsman but whoever he appoints as well. How many conservatives are out there who can be trusted as moderates? And will he veto far-right legislation or will he just hem and haw about it in public? I think the problem here is that we've forgotten what government looks like under conservative rule (and how soon we forget!). Ubiquitous lies, agencies gutted, torture, regulations destroyed, our leaders in undisclosed locations, galloping debt, reality denial and all the rest. Until they've shown themselves, as a group, to be responsible and non-evil I'm dead-set against any conservative in the White House, moderate or not.

- tealeaves

June 23, 2011 at 2:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wait a minute, doesn't roid's life consist of unicorn derivatives? Speaking of which, Eric Alterman has an unintentionally funny column in the current issue of The Nation. He lays into Barack Obama for not using the bully pulpit to push his agenda. As I have written repeatedly here, the bully pulpit is vastly overrated. One would expect legions of Nation readers to be ignorant of this - as are large numbers of TNR commenters - but Alterman is akin to a teacher and he should know better, though he actually doesn't. Once again, I commend to TNR denizens the excellent book, On Deaf Ears: The Limits Of The Bully Pulpit, by the presidential scholar, George C. Edwards III. Edwards knows a little bit more than Alterman does, which is not hard to do. I suppose without fantasies like belief in the effectiveness of the presidential bully pulpit, The Nation would cease to exist.

- liberalref

June 23, 2011 at 2:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- Ask any account exec, none of the brands in Primary '12 Inc. are meeting their spending expectations. Since Romney and Obama will sit on their cash the market is hoping to suck up Huntsman's millions until the real spending begins. Newt is busted, Sarah balked and the rest are still begging so why not go where the money is? The media could do worse than inflate the value of someone who can meet their expectations with self promotion. He'll do well in this cash up front business where funds will supercharge anyone's fame.

- michaelg

June 23, 2011 at 4:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close