Free Markets, Free People


Your Saturday Morning Laugh

This is pure political analysis, but I found it to be hilarious. It’s from today’s “Mike Allen Playbook” at Politico (Allen does this daily) in which he is discussing the appointment of Republican Gov Jon M. Huntsman Jr as ambassador to China by the Obama administration. His concludes it is a brilliant political move (and it may be) since it has been said that Huntsman has 2012 aspirations. And, of course, this effectively removes him from the spotlight.

But that’s not what I found hilarious. It was this:

The appointment is freighted with intrigue, and looks like political genius by the White House: It’s like John Edwards or John Kerry joining the Bush administration in 2001. And the GOP is left with no leading moderate voice. Huntsman was talking about immigration, the environment and gay rights in ways that would have gotten him endless elite media coverage in the run-up to 2012. Some Huntsman advisers realized that GOP primary voters might be more prepared to accept his views in 2016, after a 1964-like cataclysm in 2012. But at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, it was clear he was interested in running this time.

“Endless elite media coverage”? Anyone remember what happened to the GOP darling of the elite media this last election? Mr. Moderate was savaged by the elite media after he put away the other Republican contenders.

And you have to love the Allen implication that a candidate can enjoy “endless elite media coverage” if he happens to talk about wedge issues in a certain ‘way’. What does that say about the ‘elite media’ and journalism in general?

The 2012 presidential campaign has already begun, and like he did in his IL Senatorial race, Mr. Obama is finding ways to remove potential opponents from the ballot. That’s politics .

More disturbing, but certainly not at all surprising, is the Allen admission that the “elite media” will give a candidate “endless” coverage if he or she discusses the issues in a way that conforms with the media’s ideas of how they should be discussed.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

8 Responses to Your Saturday Morning Laugh

  • Some Huntsman advisers realized that GOP primary voters might be more prepared to accept his views in 2016, after a 1964-like cataclysm in 2012.

    Wow. And they used to say writing the headline on the way to the ballpark was bad.

    Let’s see if they’re still salivating over this possibility after the congressional elections of 2010.

  • > Mr. Moderate was savaged by the elite media after he put away the other Republican contenders.

    Yeah, after nominating Palin and going Full Metal Rove.  Get your causality right, I’m sick of people alleging McCain’s lost because he was moderate.  He’s the only Republican who had a chance but he totally blew it by nominating an ignoramus and campaigning as everything the center hated about Bush.

    • “Yeah, after nominating Palin and going Full Metal Rove.  Get your causality right, I’m sick of people alleging McCain’s [sic] lost because he was moderate.  He’s only Republican who had a chance but he totally blew it by nominating an ignoramus and campaigning as everything the center hated about Bush.”

      Have you noticed that every time the GOP nominates a “moderate” (Ford in 1976, Bush in 1992, Dole in 1996, McCain in 2008) that the party loses? When we nominate a conservative (Reagan in 1980, Reagan in 1984, Bush in 1988, Bush in 2000 and 2004), we win? Has anyone noticed this?

      McCain would have lost by 10-12 points without Palin. McCain was such a bad candidate because Obama ran a campaign based on false promises, and McCain just stood there and did nothing. It was almost as if he wanted to lose.

      If the GOP wants to win in 2012, they will nominate a conservative, like Palin. If they want to lose, they can recall Huntsman, or nominate Charlie Crist from Florida, and watch as we are stuck with Obama the Clown for four more years, allowing him to completely destroy America.

  • If Huntsman is half as bad as he is portrayed (moderation to try to appeal to the Left), then I am thrilled that The Clown™ has sent him to China. Maybe he can “moderate” his views from Beijing.

    And, oh, Johnny? Come back, say, about January 2013, when your pal Obama is heading home after his one disastrous term in office.

  • Glad he’s out of contention. He’s not his father’s son, that’s for sure. Huntsman Sr. is a man of exquisite principle, whereas Huntsman Jr. is a first-order squish.

    Obama’s done us a favor.

  • Could he turn down the appointment? If so, why wouldn’t he?

  • From what I’ve read of his positions, if he got any more “moderate”, he’d be a full fledged Democrat. 

    You know…like McCain.

    Who would have lost by twice or three times as much if he hadn’t chosen Palin.

  • For what it’s worth, when Huntsman ran for governor against Matheson (a Democrat*), their positions on just about every issue were indistinguishable.  I ended up voting for Matheson because Huntsman made a point of showing off his adopted daughter in commercials and loudly proclaiming that he treated her no differently than any of his other children.  I thought that if he wanted to treat her just the same as the others, for starters he shouldn’t go featuring only her in campaign commercials.

    * In Utah, Democrats are a lot more conservative than they are nationwide.  Their unofficial slogan is “Democrats: NOT the spawn of Satan.”

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet