Huntsman’s Problems

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2011/05/huntsmans_problems029781.php

Huntsman’s Problems

By Jonathan Bernstein

snip//


Why was John McCain a plausible nominee while Huntsman isn’t? I’d say there are two major reasons. One is that McCain has advantages that Huntsman doesn’t have. He brought to the campaign his war hero image, a long history of national visibility, and the experience of running a presidential campaign. Huntsman has none of that — on the positive side, he’s basically a generic former statewide officeholder, full stop. That’s something; it’s basically the threshold qualification. But there’s no real plus beyond that. Utah is neither a large state nor one that proves him capable of winning swing or Democratic voters. He hasn’t been a leader either in his party or of the conservative movement. There’s just no plus there. So compared to McCain, he has similar liabilities (heterodox policy views on multiple issues, a squishy record of party loyalty) without any of McCain’s advantages.

The second part of it is that John McCain won in part because every GOP candidate in 2008 had severe problems with one or more Republican-aligned group. Mike Huckabee was unacceptable on tax grounds; Mitt Romney had problems with anti-abortion groups; Rudy Giuliani…where to start? I suppose I could add Ron Paul, who national security Republicans couldn’t accept. That was exactly why Fred Thompson actually stayed survived for quite some time — he was the only candidate who would have been acceptable to every group and faction, and probably would have won the nomination if he had shown even a bit of a pulse. The problem for Huntsman this year is that Tim Pawlenty is playing the role of Thompson, and Pawlenty actually wants to be president. (I’d also argue that Romney is probably more acceptable to all factions now, having had four years for his new set of positions to set in; as I’ve said before, I don’t think that health care is the same kind of litmus-test issue).

So, while it’s always a good idea to look back at these things from time to time, I just can’t see Huntsman as a plausible nominee. I can’t figure out who — in the actual Republican Party, the one that’s going to select the nominee — picks Huntsman over the other entrants. Now, there’s always a possibility that something unexpected and unpredictable happens; that’s part of politics, too, and, and once can certainly invent a scenario for Huntsman or any of the other implausible nominees. But for now, I don’t see any reason to include him on the small list of those Republicans who have a decent shot at being nominated in 2012.

[Tx4obama]

1. Like Romeny, Huntsman is also a Mormon.

IF it is a liability for Romney it will be for Huntsman too.

[center rising]

7. Huntsman has an image problem

He's seen as not as crazy as the others, and that's why he's toast.

[randr]

2. The simple fact that he nominated Palin for VP is reason

to question his reasoning. If it was OK with him to put Sarah a heart beat away from the Presidency he is not qualified to sit in the Oval Office EVER!

[babylonsister]

4. ? This is about Huntsman, the ever-popular candidate most have

never heard of.

[randr]

6. Huntsman delivered the nominating speech for Palin at the Republican Convention

[OHdem10]

3. Very popular governor. Relates well to people. He is one

of those Rich Candidates who is comfortable in every setting.
Having represented this country in both Japan and China
gives him some background that others do not have. The working
class call it being down to earth. You know the Laura Bush
quality.

No I am not supporting him. Just trying to be fair.

He is serious, he supports the Ryan Plan.

[flamingdem]

5. He seemed awkward in the latest interview, unconvincing nt

[Township75]

8. Anyone who agrees with the article likely didn't vote for Obama in 2008.

Or, they only have standards for nominees when it isn't the Democratic nominee.

"he’s basically a generic former statewide officeholder, full stop. That’s something; it’s basically the threshold qualification. But there’s no real plus beyond that. Utah is neither a large state nor one that proves him capable of winning swing or Democratic voters. He hasn’t been a leader either in his party or of the conservative movement. There’s just no plus there"

In addition to that aquote, Huntsmen has much more international experience than Obama had before the presidency, so these are weak arguements for Dems to say Huntsman isn't qualified.