You think (4.00 / 2)

Huntsman will win his Republican primary by running ads of Obama praising him?

---

by: kos @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 10:56:47 AM CDT

No, that's silly. (4.00 / 3)

He'll win the Republican primary by veering right. Then have Obama as a validator in the general, after taking those bad positions in the primary.

---

by: AdamGreen @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 10:59:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You still have that little problem of Obama (4.00 / 1)

endorsing whoever the Democratic nominee is and campaigning for them.  Didn't we see this with the Oregon Senate race?

One throwaway line about him being a good man from Obama isn't going to be taken into serious account by people who care what Obama thinks when Obama is out stumping all the time for the other guy.

---

by: turnnoblindeye @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 12:21:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah (4.00 / 2)

none of his Republican opponents will think to run ads showing Obama praising him...

---

by: kos @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 18:53:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, that's silly. (0.00 / 0)

He'll win the Republican primary by veering right. Then have Obama as a validator in the general, after taking those bad positions in the primary.

---

by: AdamGreen @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 10:59:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Is this really necessary? (4.00 / 2)

You yourself point out you are little informed on Huntsman's record and aren't even particularly interested in it, or the reasons behind his appointment, at least insofar as this post goes.

But you are evidently concerned enough about some throw-away language used in the appointment process to write a Front Page post about it.  Why is this important?

This appointment is a logical and effective appointment for a number of reasons.  It could also be opposed for different reasons.  But you chose to focus on some meaningless language that may briefly be used in a campaign add in 7 years.

As an individual that always tries to put PEOPLE ahead of all else, including country, I could care less about that phrase.  And I also think your assertion that someone that chose to support and work for a major party's Presidential nominee (or even a minor party's nominee, for that matter) is somehow not putting his "country first" is ridiculous.  

Demonizing the political opposition is childish.  Attack them on their faults and transgressions, God knows they have enough of those.

---

by: alffy @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 11:06:48 AM CDT

here's why you're wrong. (4.00 / 1)

First, to say that we shouldn't be concerned with a moment that's not right in front of our noses is ridiculous. That kind of short-term  mentality is what's wrong with a lot of our politics.

A lot of the decisions Bill Clinton made as president -- including the political decision not to build a progressive infrastructure that would last beyond Bill Clinton -- had big consequences in the future. Obama should not be propping up 2016 candidates. So, I'll just accept the criticism of me thinking long-term as a ridiculous argument on its face.

Second, yes, supporting Jon McCain over Barack Obama was not putting our country first. I stand by that. It was the definition of putting political party first. I can't think of a more obvious example.

Third, as I said above, this appointment was reasonable. So I don't come to this as someone looking to criticize Obama. I come to this as someone who worked hard to elect him and who woke up this morning feeling quite positive about this appointment.

Fourth, do you know what else was reasonable? Most of what Obama had to say today -- namely, why Huntsman is right FOR THIS POSITION:

What Jon brings to this post isn't just a steadfast commitment to advancing the interests of the American people; it's a lifetime of knowledge and experience that will help advance this important partnership.  Jon brings to this post experience as a former ambassador to Singapore, who's intimately familiar with many of the most pressing challenges confronting Asia.  He brings experience both in the private sector and as Deputy United States Trade Representative to Asia and Africa, where he stood up for America's economic interests abroad.  And Jon is well prepared to build a partnership that reflects a new understanding between our two countries because he's lived in Asia three times and is fluent in Mandarin Chinese.

That's the kind of ambassador we need in China -- an ambassador who has a respect for China's proud traditions, who understands what it will take to make America more competitive in the 21st century, and who will be an unstinting advocate for America's interests and ideals.  With Jon Huntsman representing the United States in China, I'm confident that we will launch a new era of partnership between our two nations that will advance our shared dreams of opportunity and security in America, in Asia, and around the world.

That's all great! So what's the point of saying this?

I know that Jon is the kind of leader who always puts country ahead of party and is always willing to sacrifice on behalf of our nation. That's what Jon has always done.

To throw your question right back at you, "Is this really necessary?"

---

by: AdamGreen @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 11:19:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I will concede that perhaps the "always puts country first" line was unnecessary (4.00 / 1)

but Huntsman is potentially sacrificing his political future by stepping down as a governor to accept a post (albeit an important one) VERY far away and out of most people's sight, so Obama is merely honoring him in a way Huntsman will appreciate.

To take your other points in order: 1) I am not ignoring the long-term in favor of the short.  I believe you are making a mountain out of a molehill.  The longer away a potential future lies, the less likely it is to occur (there become more viable potentialities over time which decreases the probability of any one occurring).  Therefore worrying about a throw-away line coming back to bite us in 7 years is a bit ridiculous.  Heck, one might predict that the appointment of Huntsman actually decreases the likelihood of him even running in 2016.

2) By your definition, ANYONE that supports ANY political party is not putting country first.  While I agree, and George Washington pointed this out a couple hundred years ago, it is also the world we live in.  Political parties are necessary beasts at this time and they put forward Presidential candidates.  Party members support those candidates for different reasons.  To demonize them for doing so, for arguing they are putting "party first," is merely polemical nonsense.

To take this point further- did you support Obama, and only Obama, for President from the very beginning?  I didn't (although I was torn between him and Edwards, I finally decided to initially support Edwards).  If you (and I) did not fully believe that Obama was the best choice for President initially, but then came to support him after our party eliminated our preferred candidate, then we were not putting country first either.  We were supporting our party's candidate.  Even if we thought that he was a better choice then the other party's pick, we still were not voting for whom we honestly thought was the best interest for the country (for me that was Edwards, but I am fully content with Obama).

3) Point taken.

4) Answered at the beginning of this comment.

---

by: alffy @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 11:46:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll bet he was a campaign co-chair *before* Sarah Palin was picked, (0.00 / 0)

and choosing to chair John McCain's campaign back in March of 2008 was not some egregious instance of putting party before country.  You're essentially arguing that anyone who supported John McCain at all was putting party before country, which is a pretty partisan belief to hold.

---

by: texas dem @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 14:13:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i agree (0.00 / 0)

except you gotta admit this was pretty bad:

---

by: tremayne @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 14:18:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Jon Huntsman is being Marketed. C'mon. Look deeper (0.00 / 0)

I don't think Huntsman speaks fluent Mandarin ...I think he simply spent some time in Tawian as a Missionary ...learning a lanuage fluently usually requires more than a couple of years.

Fluent is not knowing a few phrases...it means you can speak on almost any topic and understand colliquial language...and really you ought to be able to read and write...otherwise you are not literate.

He will need an interpreter at all times.

He's the son of a billionaire who worked for Dow chemical who made Napalm used to as missionary medicine for Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian villagers in South East Asia.

Dad started his own company...why not look into what dad made?

Don't accept what they are telling you at face value...it's almost always a lie.

---

by: Stu Piddy @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 11:21:26 AM CDT

I read it in Politico (0.00 / 0)

So it must be true.

---

by: AdamGreen @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 11:25:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

what? (0.00 / 0)

The accent and odd idiom don't go away, but several years immersion will give someone fluency. You can get something like near fluency with several years of classroom instruction (though not for a language like chinese that is not at all related to english).

---

by: yoyoyo @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 12:31:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mandarin is not really the language of Taiwan...where he was a missionary (0.00 / 0)

He didn't go there to study Mandarin...since you have to learn to read it in order to speak it properly...your not going to be able to do that in 2 years...

Plus in Taiwan they don't speak Mandarin...not really...it's the language of the upper classes and even they don't necessarily use it.

Assuming he was talking to "villagers" ....he wasn't speaking Mandarin to them...they don't speak it.

I wrote a diary about it today....

---

by: Stu Piddy @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 14:32:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are aware that LDS missionaries receive... (0.00 / 0)

...language training, aren't you?  I've got a friend who speaks fluent Dutch because he went through MTC before his mission trip.  These guys are being trained to explain this in another language: that takes a little more than asking "where is the library?".

Yeah I blog.

---

by: JR @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 19:20:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

JR Get the Putty out of your Brain. (0.00 / 0)

I speak another language and I know what it takes to speak fluently....it takes a singular focus...many hours a day reading, writing and speaking to all kinds of native speakers....you can't do that as a missionary because your not there to learn a language...your there to convert people though the work that missionaries do and that's not all talking.

Language training is hardly anything....I had 5 years of Spanish...I didn't understand a thing anybody was saying in Mexico or Spain. You have to live there and speak and read and write.

Reading is very important. Mandarin....learning to read it...is completely separate from speaking it. Only after learning to read it does it begin to affect the speech.

My point is....why do you believe these things they are telling you? Why don't you look at things more skeptically.

They don't REALLY SPEAK MANDARIN IN TAIWAN anyway...you didn't address that. And if he was "ministering" to poor people, I suspect no MANDARIN would have been spoken.

All this stuff about fluent in Mandarin, Progressive Rock band etc are just marketing to make the selection of a backward mormon Republican more acceptable to putty brains like the one you have JR. Where's you damn individuality that you would defend this after reading what Iv'e presented.

What's the name of the "progressive rock" band that he's in? Where do they play? I'm a musician. It doesn't sound right to me. It's out of tune...something's wrong here.

It's all bullshit...because it doesn't ADD UP!

It has to add up.

---

by: Stu Piddy @ Sun May 17, 2009 at 10:45:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

stealing my own comment from a quick hit on this: (4.00 / 3)

You can count on Rahm Emanuel's 4-fingered hand the number of sane-sounding Republican leaders. And maybe the best one just got sent far far away. Not gonna see him on TV much the next few years.

Speaking of Rahm, I wonder whose idea this was.....

---

by: tremayne @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 11:39:43 AM CDT

I made this point above, too (4.00 / 1)

but I think it posted after yours.

I think taking this guy out of a viable presidential track (governor of a Western state) and sending him to, quite literally, the other side of the world, is a politically important and astute move.   The primping his feathers with some really pretty throw-away lines he MIGHT someday want to use in a political ad is relatively meaningless.

---

by: alffy @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 11:54:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

If it's a throw away line... (4.00 / 1)

...than they should have thrown it away.

It's not meaningless. It's a huge validator. Just read it.

The rest of the statement was full of plenty of praise for Huntsman...for this position. That's all that was needed.

I think that when the current occupants of the White House do things that have no relevance to them but potentially huge relevance to the progressive movement down the road, they need to be called out...even by their supporters. It's not ok to sacrifice the long term.

---

by: AdamGreen @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 12:22:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Also (0.00 / 0)

I don't see how someone favoring civil unions has much future in the GOP for the next decade or two.

---

by: yoyoyo @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 12:38:48 PM CDT

That's fine. (0.00 / 0)

If he doesn't run or doesn't win the Republican nomination, it's all moot. But if he does run and wins the Republican nomination, Obama's unnecessary statement today with broad effusive praise will hurt. There was no upside, only downside.

---

by: AdamGreen @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 12:49:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The guy is a pro-civil-unions, Mormon moderate, who took an appointment in China, from Barack Obama. (4.00 / 2)

His electoral career is pretty much over.  Not only is he 100% unable to be a candidate in 2012, I'd wager he's 90% unable to be a candidate in 2016; I don't think the GOP base will change fast enough to allow Obama's Ambassador to China, and a moderate Mormon to boot, to be nominated in 2016.  2020, maybe.

Now he's only 48, so in 2020 he'd still be only 60.  So I guess his being a candidate in 2020 is conceivable.  But I wouldn't count on this "country before party" being such a hot tagline by then anyway.  Was that slogan a big deal in 2004?  2000?  1996?  1992?

That was a product of this election, and John McCain's need to turn his well-known record of crossing party lines in the Senate into some kind of political advantage.  (It helped magnify his POW experience too.)  There's no reason to think it will sound powerful or meaningful or like anything other than typical speech puffery in twelve years.  Just like it would have sounded like nothing but puffery in 2000.

---

by: texas dem @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 14:24:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

also, john mccain lost. nt. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: seabrook @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 15:35:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Meh... (0.00 / 0)

This appointment doesn't really bother me and I doubt some silly line will become critically important in 7.5 years.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 12:55:42 PM CDT

meh (0.00 / 0)

Appointment doesn't bother me either. That's not the point.

I don't get the idea that just because the consequence of today's words comes 7.5 years from now, it's not important. 7 years ago, the 2008 election wasn't important...but, when we got to to 2008, it was the most important thing happening.

If there were ads in 2008 quoting Barack Obama years earlier saying this, we'd be kinda not happy:

I know that John McCain is the kind of leader who always puts country ahead of party and is always willing to sacrifice on behalf of our nation. That's what John McCain has always done. Throughout his career, John McCain has shown a willingness to move beyond the old ideologies and stale debates that all too often bring progress to a standstill. Time and again, John McCain's brought people together across party lines to overcome our common challenges and to move our nation forward.

Again, if Huntsman doesn't run, moot point. But if he runs and is the general election candidate, there's no upside to Obama's insertion of this paragraph today and total downside. So, why do it?

---

by: AdamGreen @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 13:36:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is about 2012.... (0.00 / 0)

...nothing more...

We'll worry about 2016 when that time comes...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 16:45:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama basically did say this kind of thing during the campaign... (0.00 / 0)

And it frustrated the hell out of all of us, and it mattered not.  I highly doubt that him saying this now will matter in 7.5 years.  I'm not saying the 2016 election won't matter... of course it will, just as the 2000 election was obviously critically important.  I'm saying that this line won't matter in the 2016 election.

To be honest, the fact that he worked for the Obama administration in any capacity will probably be more important than this line from Obama.  Perhaps the appointment SHOULD bother us more, in that regard. On the other hand, 2016 is a long ways away and there could be all kinds of things that happen by then, and who knows who the Democratic nominee will be (and what the Republicans will even look like by then... it's extremely unlikely I'd vote for him but it's possible that Huntsman could be, at the very least, a vast vast improvement to whatever the GOP has nominated in 20 years, which, if you ask me, is a good sign for our country... but I'm getting ahead of myself. =) )

---

by: leshrac55 @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 19:46:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama's Moral Imperative To Lie (0.00 / 0)

Obama sees jingoist lying as a moral imperative.  All members of the elite have always put country first.

And we've always been at war with Eastasia.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 13:30:57 PM CDT

Huntsman's no danger to us. (4.00 / 1)

There's no way he'll win in a Republican primary with all the things he's on record saying.  Honestly I think this indicates he's more interested in pursuing a career as a diplomat then running for President.

Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/

---

by: ARDem @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 13:40:18 PM CDT

Plus (0.00 / 0)

He's a Mormon, which we know is the kiss of death in the Republican primary.  

---

by: ecotect @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 16:21:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh please (0.00 / 0)

this is pathetic Adam. Huntsman will never win a Republican primary. He's one of the most intellectually honest Republicans in the country, well qualified and is a brilliant pick for the post. It puts the Republicans off guard and will end the national career of the strongest potential Republican candidate. Imagine if George Bush had served in Bill Clinton's administration, think he could have won a Republican primary?  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 13:50:50 PM CDT

except (4.00 / 1)

John McCain should never have won a Republican primary after some of the things he's said and his lack of popularity with their base.

I think most voters in both parties end up gravitating toward whoever they think will win. McCain was less nutty than their other options and he won. In 2004 Dean had the Democratic base but the average voter thought Kerry and his military background had a better shot against Bush.

Give the Rs another couple years to get used to the fact their views are outside of the mainstream and you'll see their voters pick another moderate.

---

by: tremayne @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 14:06:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If Jon Huntsman is the GOP nominee in 2016 (0.00 / 0)

I will donate $216 to any group Adam chooses. Voided if a new right-wing party is formed and gets over 5 percent of the vote in the general election.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 19:59:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This country is such a mess. (0.00 / 0)

I'm more concerned about fixing that mess than about hypothetical political ads in campaign that is 7 years away.

---

by: psychodrew @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 14:10:08 PM CDT

wow (4.00 / 1)

I can't believe you think this:

But I do know that if he "always puts country ahead of party" he would not have co-chaired Jon McCain's campaign.

I mean, I know you think John McCain would be worse than Obama, but this statement means that you think Republicans think that too.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 14:10:42 PM CDT

If one ad... (4.00 / 5)

featuring Barack Obama saying something nice about him is enough to win Jon Huntsman the presidency in 2016, we've got much bigger problems than saying nice things about Republicans.

This doesn't even come close to clearing the field for Specter.

---

by: potus2020 @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 15:03:19 PM CDT

What do you think a candidacy is worth? (0.00 / 0)

Barack Obama, for the cost of one big fat helping of public praise and a key ambassadorial post, just eliminated a potential siphon for moderate voters in 2012 and cut another potential opportunity for moderate Republicans to regroup.

Even if this molehill were a mountain, I still think Obama got a great deal.

Yeah I blog.

---

by: JR @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 19:38:00 PM CDT