THE STUMP NOVEMBER 29, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
When I recently visited the spic-and-span offices of Americans Elect, the millionaire-funded initiative to get a bipartisan, online-nominated ticket on the presidential ballot next year, I asked the group's second in command, Elliot Ackerman, what he made of criticisms that the group could spoil Barack Obama's prospects. Ackerman, whose corporate-raider father Peter Ackerman founded the group, told me that someone had recently challenged him by saying, “‘Think how much this would hurt President Obama if Hillary Clinton ran with Jon Huntsman.’” Ackerman’s boyish face then broke into a grin. “Our reply was, ‘I don’t think that would hurt President Obama. I think that ticket will win.’”
Well, Ackerman (whose group has raised more than $20 million from an undisclosed list of big donors, and is well on its way to gaining 50-state ballot access) must be smiling even more broadly now. The Boston Globe's Glen Johnson asked Huntsman up front today about whether he had any plans of mounting an independent run if he doesn't get the Republican nomination, and Huntsman's denial was far from categorical.
Asked, “Is there any situation in which you would run for president as an independent?” Huntsman told The Boston Globe, “I don’t think so.”
Told that anything but a flat denial could perpetuate speculation about the possibility, Huntsman replied: “I’m a lifelong Republican. I’m running as a Republican, and I fully anticipate that that’s where we’re going to be.”
Now all they need is Hillary. She's flatly denied interest in any such thing, but Americans Elect's leadership team includes several top Hillary boosters from 2008 who could perhaps persuade her otherwise, including "Democratic" pollster Doug Schoen and Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the heiress who went on a notorious anti-Obama rant after the 2008 primaries, dismissing him as an "elitist."
In any case, the movement is now officially underway -- one can all but hear the grass-tops rippling in the breeze.
12 comments
Here's my comment on another thread: Why not return to the design of the founders and have the two candidates with the most votes elected to president and vice president, but with a twist, those same two alternating each year as president and vice president. This would serve a couple of salutary purposes. First, it would give the vice president's party much greater incentive to cooperate with the president's party, and vice versa, as both parties have a stake in a "successful" presidency. Second, it would give the vice president something to do besides avoiding embarassment to himself and the president. Third, it would help avoid the second term blahs that so many presidents seem to suffer. And finally, it would come much closer to the design of the founders, at least his Excellency Washington (though not the wingnuts' new favorite, the hyper-partisan Madison), for a non-partisan president. Some might complain that, in the absence of a party agenda, little is likely to be accomplished. My response: a little, if that's the result (which I doubt), is better than today's nothing.
- rayward
November 29, 2011 at 6:27pm
Rayward, I think your idea is worth consideration. We definitely have had the "same old," "same old," and America has lost its flavor and vitality on the bed post overnight. We were indeed original and creative in 1776 (though hobbled by slavery and genocide against aborigines); it's time to take some creative leaps again.
- skahn
November 29, 2011 at 6:37pm
TRB long promoted a parliamentary system for America, and warned that the biggest threat to American democracy was gridlock, gridlock that is the product of a system that exagerates the power of southern states and small states. I am referring to Richard Strout, who wrote the TRB column for 40 years. He's been dead for over 20 years, yet he seems to have more awareness of today's crisis than today's commentariat. Anyway, I have suggested a modification of the American way, or at least his Excellency Washington's way. Strout suggested a more European way. I'd take either over the mess we have today, a mess that will culminate in a constitutional crisis, a constitutional crisis in the midst of an economic crisis. Not a good combination.
- rayward
November 29, 2011 at 7:18pm
If this guy claims to believe Hillary Clinton would win as an independent, he's either lying or willfully blind. The Republican Party is unhappy with its front-runner because they don't think he's conservative enough! Clinton wouldn't be pulling any votes from that side of the aisle. Her votes would all come from Democrats and independents, the exact same pool Obama will be drawing on. Clinton and Obama would split the vote and deliver the White House to Romney on a silver platter. In the process, she would burn every bridge she ever had to the Democratic Party. Fortunately, Hillary Clinton knows all this as well as anybody; she would never let herself get suckered into a suicide pact like that. The most charitable view of Americans Elect is that they're a bunch of naive whiners who know f***-all about what's actually going on in politicsm, and just take it for granted that both parties are equally to blame for everything. The less charitable view is that they're in the tank for Mitt Romney.
- Dausuul
November 29, 2011 at 7:32pm
rayward, skahn - I am ready to go back to the original idea of the Electoral College deciding, not bound by the votes in their states, eeven though some/many states have made that against state laws. As to Huntsman? His very first fundraiser was a dinner party hosted by Lady Lynn Rothschild, who undoubtedly knew that Hillary had promised the VP slot to Evan Bayh, who announced he would NOT run in 2008 the day after he had appeared on C-Span with Hillary on their return from Afghanistan. I was watching C-Span by accident late that night, and thought it too much of a coincidence. Everyone is a RINO to the purists, and the Dems don't want the Blue Dogs. There is a middle.
- K2K
November 29, 2011 at 8:53pm
As we all know, Huntsman is really running for the Republican nomination in 2016. If he fools with this too much, it means he's given up on that idea. And Hillary, I'm quite sure, is not nearly such a fool.
- timteeter
November 29, 2011 at 10:26pm
"The most charitable view of Americans Elect is that they're a bunch of naive whiners who know f***-all about what's actually going on in politics". That was my reaction. Wouldn't it be great to have hundreds of thousands of dollars laying around so you could screw with American politics as much as you want? Maybe I could talk some Bachman-like loon into running as my candidate, just to siphon off some of the crazies who would otherwise vote Republican.
- Fishpeddler
November 30, 2011 at 9:34am
"Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the heiress who went on a notorious anti-Obama rant after the 2008 primaries, dismissing him as an "elitist." Money talks and TNR listens. Disgusting that Progressives should look to "Lady de Rothchild" for political advice.
- LawrenceGulotta
November 30, 2011 at 11:20am
Hillary Clinton won't run for President in 2012 just because Doug Schoen or Lady Lynn want her to do so. These people aren't even real Democrats (by which I mean real Democrats, I mean people who are involved in today's Democratic Party politics, think-tank advocacy and major fundraising). There is only one person who could convince her to run as an independent in 2012, and despite that guy's tendency to run his mouth to Newsmax I see about zero chance that he would bless that kind of a campaign in 2012. Having her replace Biden on the ticket, on the other hand, might be something she could consider.
- wildboy
November 30, 2011 at 12:07pm
Make it Hillary-Huntsman and I'm all in.
- mlottman
November 30, 2011 at 2:50pm
Thomas Jefferson, who had some good instincts and a gift for turning a phrase, once said, " "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." [I am carefully avoiding toxic italic here.] His eloquence was undermined a bit by his habit of of keeping and at least in once case schtupping slaves. I do not have as pertinent a quote from Mao Zedong at hand, but I think it's accurate to say he favored the idea of permanent revolution, though an unfortunate habit of killing millions of people while striving to keep his ideals alive does make me wonder why people in a few places (Nepal, for instance) still describe themselves as "Maoists." In any case, to return to earlier comments [particularly by Ray Ward] about reviving our system of government by changing it perhaps we should put it into our Constitution that we need to change our system of government every fifty years or so. Perhaps ten systems [parliamentary, 50 independent states, President picked by lottery, ... etc.] put in a hat (to prevent something really crazy or really impractical being picked by a mob) and drawn by a six year old child. This would give us all something to talk about and keep TNR alive for decades.
- skahn
November 30, 2011 at 7:34pm
The more we overhaul Washington to reduce the influence of multi-term professional politicians, the more lobbyists and interest-group mavens step in to fill the void. Look how Grover Norquist holds the entire Republican caucus by the balls. That would never have happened in the Congress of 50 years ago; incumbent Republicans would have told Norquist to take a hike, and if he tried to "primary" them, the challengers would have gone nowhere fast. Americans hate to hear this, but good government is hard. It is not a job that can be done by any random schmoe. A professional political class is--well, maybe not a good thing, exactly, but a necessary thing.
- Dausuul
December 1, 2011 at 1:16pm