Huntsman to China: It's About Romney

Here.

I can tell you that Hunstman's popularity(80% approval) is the real thing. The governor was great for education causes, but he was butting heads with the GOP state assembly that wanted to cut education funding dramatically. His stance on civil unions didn't win him any favors here with republicans.

He would have been very attractive for Independants ...and just like that....he is gone

I keep saying the poeple underestimate Obama on their own peril.

I think this is about Obama's long-term campaign to marginalize and radicalize the Republican Party. Huntsman can't run again for Governor due to term limits, and he's come out in favor of civil unions (which, in Utah, is a pretty big deal) - which signaled to many that he had more national ambitions and was hoping to run as a moderate candidate. Nate Silver wrote about it here: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/republican-governor-panders-on-ga... -- and in another post in which he discussed the fact that nobody coming up for the 2012 GOP primary is going for the moderate side of the party (though that side is shrinking, there'd be significantly less competition on that side than among the various people trying to make end-runs around each other further and further to the right - apologies for the sports metaphor). Plouffe mentioned that Huntsman is the only member of the GOP that he'd be worried about facing in 2012. Now that Huntsman has taken a job from Obama, that possibility has been neatly nipped in the bud - and the GOP loses one more moderate voice, an up-and-coming one no less. I am convinced that Obama is hoping to radicalize the GOP on a very long-term basis and not just for 2012 and the midterms, and getting Huntsman out of the GOP camp and out of the running for a primary is a massive coup.

The anti-Mormon bigotry in the Evangelical South would probably disappear in a general election against Obama because, let's face it, at least Romney's white and conservative.  So the question of Mitt's success or failure as a candidate for the GOP will depend entirely on who he's facing off against in the primaries.

Right now, other than presumably Sarah Palin, it's hard to see who that competition might be.  The names that have been bubbling up in the last few months aren't necessarily any more of a slam dunk at this point.

Kudos again, Al, for the targeted analysis of the "crazy like a fox" moves that the President makes in his appointments.  I have close family members who are LDS, and were active supporters of Obama during the campaign, including donations.  To ardent Evangelicals, Mormons are in a cult. Beliefs aside, I find this choice, as you stated, "a slam dunk" as well.  

One point:  Whether folks agree or not, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are deeply trained in community organizing.  As you said during the Rowe Conference last month, "If your not knocking on doors, it's not organizing."

Touche' Obama. 

Sooner or later, the Democratic string of luck will run out. If a sane Republican rises to the top because all of the wackos have so wrecked the party, then it would behoove America to have somebody who is ready to run it.

In a previous post I mentioned an alliance between conservative minorities and Rockefeller Republicans taking over the shell of the bombed out Republican party. Huntsman and a few other moderate Republicans and even a retired Arlen Specter could use a little help while they wait for the Palinites to crash and burn.

There is no religious test in the Democratic Party. Harry Reid is Majority Leader. A Mormon Democrat could run for President without his Mormonism being even a blip of a concern in party circles. He/she may be seen as too conservative, but the Religion doesn't play as a concern, not in the party that nominated and elected the first Catholic President and will probably be the one to get the first Jew in the Oval Office too when one emerges with enough national stature to run nationwide. The election of the first African-American only underscores the inclusiveness of the party regarding all sorts of differences.

McCain won the nomination despite not being particularly beloved among Southern Baptists and conservative Evangeliacals.  Huckabee was the religious conservative candidate and he didn't have anywhere near enough votes to stop McCain.  If you add Romney's votes to McCain's votes from the '08 primary, that is plenty for Mitt to win even if you allow that a minority of the McCain voters might have a problem voting for a Morman.  

That said, I don't think that there was room for two leading Morman candidates in the Republican primary.  So it makes a lot of sense for Huntsman to let Romney run and lose in 2012 and keep his options open for 2016 which is likely to be a better year for Republicans.  He is also young enough to wait for 2020. 

I've noticed that Obama operates a lot like Richard Nixon.  No, not in his his ideology or with any dirty tricks, but in his skill at divide and conquer. 

Look at the move to pick a fight with Limbaugh, Fox and the teabaggers.  This is like Nixon's move to split the youth vote and make hippy a dirty word.  It disarmed the anti-war issue.  Now, the Limbaughs, Hannitys and Becks don't have popular support for their pet issues but the political MOs of 1970 and 2009 are looking quite similar.  Count on protest and incivility from those you battle to position yourself as reasonable in comparison.  Obama knows the radio and cable pundits are too self-interested to back down and the GOP too nervous to remove Rush.  Obama has turned teabaggers into the new hippies. 

Now, Huntsman.  Start removing moderate opposition candidates and increase the odds of getting the Republican equivalent of George McGovern in '12. 

I'm beginning to better understand the ravings of Pat Buchanan and Roger Ailes.  They came of age getting Tricky Dick elected in '68 and starting the Republican era.  Buchanan wrote the "Muskie Watch" memo in '71 advising, "top level consideration should be given to ways and means to promote, assist, and fund a Fourth Party candidacy of the Left Democrats and/or the Black Democrats," while at the same time promoting black candidates to run for the Democratic nomination in '72. Destroy the party from within while simultaneously portraying it as out of touch with mainstream (white) America.  Not that Nixon needed much prodding to follow through and interere in his opponents' campaigns.

It has to drive the old racist crazy that 40 years later a black man has mastered the Old Man's -- and his -- political playbook and is now reaching into GOP politics to hobble them. 

Now, to hope that Afghanistan doesn't become Obama's Cambodia.

ikl - I wrote about it at the time, when the contest was clearly between McCain and Romney and Huckabee was acting (intentionally, I wrote) as a spoiler, normally at that point in the process those uncomfortable with one of the two frontrunners rally behind the other frontrunner. (i.e. on the Democratic side, it became a two-horse race by February).

The Evangelicals hated McCain, but they could not bring themselves to vote for a Mormon. Had it been anybody but Romney - had it been Thompson or even Giuliani, even as a pro-choice Republican - I think they would have rallied behind one of them as the last man standing between McCain and the nomination.

The right wing talkers, from Limbaugh to Hewitt to Malkin on down - tried very hard to rally the base to support Mitt once he became the last tackler between McCain and the end zone. But the base wouldn't do it. And it was pure bigotry. So they voted for the guy - Huckabee - who they knew didn't have a shot, enough weeks in a row to allow McCain to rack up the delegates in what were many "winner take all" primaries, which is something the Democrats no longer have.

This is why this is such a superb move on Obama's part:

1) It wedgies up the GOP very nicely.

2) It removes a sane, charismatic Republican from the possible pool of 2012 challengers.  (Of course, Huntsman, being one of the rare pols whose ego doesn't sabotage their career by interfering with brain function, may have already realized that he really doesn't want to face Obama in 2012.)

3) If the Republicans manage to survive to 2016, Huntsman is well-primed to become the guy who leads them out of the wilderness, which would benefit us all as it would help to shove the political framework back leftward again.  (They're not yet ready for this stage.  It will take another seven years of eating ordure for that to happen.)

Al, I understand your point about '08, but I think think that my point holds about '12.  Romney has to find a way to bring together a coalition of McCain voters from '08 and Romney voters from '08.  If there is a strong moderate like McCain taking votes from the center, this is pretty hard to do for the reasons that you point out, namely that there may not be enough voters on the Republican right who will vote for a Morman in the primary.  But if Romney is the center-right candidate running against a Mike Huckabee or a Sarah Palin, then I think that the primary is very winnable for him.  Romney would do very well with upper-income voters, Mormans, and Republicans in New England and Upper Midwest who don't care about his religion but may be uncomfortable with a conservative Evangelical or Southern Baptist right-wing populist.  He would lose in the South, but should pick up enough delegates to pull him through if he won the big winner-take-all states in the north and west.  Florida might be the big test for him.

The problem for Romney that I see is that he got his ideological positioning all screwed up in 2008 because he thought that he could win the GOP primary as the conservative candidate.  This is a poor fit for him.  I think that he is better as a New England, pro-business moderate conservative - the kind that he was in MA.  He seemed (somewhat) more genuine as a candidate in MA whereas he has struck me as a total phony ever since starting to run for President.  I don't think that this is a matter of ideological commitments (I'm not sure that he has any!) as much as personal style and family background - he is, after all, George Romney's son, not Barry Goldwater's or Pat Robertson's.  

So I think that Romney needs to position himself as a right of center, but not far right candidate.  But he has moved around so much ideologically recently, that he may have boxed himself in.  In any case, I don't think that he has great political skills (doesn't relate well to ordinary, non-wealthy folks, for example) and while not the worst candidate out there, isn't especially fearsome.  

Romney always looks like a better candidate on paper than he proved to be in person. I think he comes across as too obviously phony (as the saying goes, the key thing is sincerity and once you can fake that, you've got it made, but he isn't good at faking it) and is stiff when campaigning in front of real, ordinary people.

A larger question is how many moderate Republicans there will be in 2012. On current trends, they're going to be even more the party of Palin than they are already. Specter and Huntsman got while the getting is good.

Does everybody remember the blogosphere debates during the Stimulus bill when many scorned Obama's "bipartisanship" language?

Huntsman's leap is an early dividend from that.

I think that's why - as with Specter's party shift - we see some voices bemoaning even this: It proves them as having been wrong when they called for more red-meat partisan language.

I really think that the Republican Party is positioning itself to run off the cliff in 2012 by nominating Palin. Romney would at best be a "none of the above candidate" with less than enthusiastic support-even less support than McCain if he even gets past the Republican base. The mere fact that the President for the Club for Growth is even thought as a good candidate for Pennsylvania is a sure sign the party is slowly imploding. Think of who they thought was actually viable in 2008: Guiliani, Thompson and Huckabee.

I bet he doesn't even run though in 2012. He didn't do all that well against an aging McCain, and a younger crop of candidates won't give him an easier time. Jindal will wait until 2016 and hope he runs against an elderly Biden. In any case, he knows he can wait-he's barely eligible to run, and racking up another term or two and a Senate seat would serve to enhance his Presidential resume. Huckabee is also in his early fifties and may decide to sit it out until 16 when he can run in the (probably) open Presidential year.

So  that may leave Palin the front-running in a very fractured field, a potential sacrificial lamb, the possible Republican answer to McGovern-without the idealism and caring of McGovern. The talk-show pundits love her, Bush could care less about the future of the party now that it no longer serves him and his purposes, and its clear nobody else is of sufficient stature to stop her rise once Romney's gone.

Andrew Sullivan directs folks to The Field, with the comment, "Al Giordano sees more beneath the surface." 

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/the-huntsma...

FYI

It seems the GOP is already marginalizing itself, without needing any help from the other side. But if Obama et al ARE about that, it may just come back to bite.  There is already a very significant territory to occupy in what I will call the "populist center".  If people from the far right were to try to co-opt it, that won't fly.  Way too fishy-looking.  And Barack, as each week goes by, seems to lock himself into policies and programs that pragmatic people who pay attention to history and current events just cannot get behind.

However, depending on what happens in the next couple of Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Emmanuel years, I could see a populist coalition of some kind being formed up and getting traction.  Who knows how far that could go; events and personalities will determine that.  I think further marginalizing the GOP into the far right-hand corner of the field will be key to a "third party" or a "non-party coalition" taking root. 

I suggest you look up the Mormon population of Colorado, isn't it <2% or so?

Wow! I'm just blown away by the quality of the comments posted here. I'm a daily reader of Andrew Sullivan and would have never found this blog otherwise.

ikl, with all due respect, you shouldn't lump Barry Goldwater with Pat Robertson. Goldwater was a libertarian type Republican, who supported allowing gays to serve in the military. He said "you don't have to be straight to shoot straight. Unlike today's Republicans, he really did believe in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and personal freedom.

Sadly, the GOP has been taken over by the Robertson faction of the party. That's how we ended up with W. and Palin as darlings of the "conservative" movement.

I wouldn't ever underestimate the Mormon talent pool, especially in world affairs. They have the most extensive mission programs and the most language proficient missionaries of any religion, major or minor. I'm mystified by the tenets, they seem bizarre even in comparison to many other religions, which I mostly feel are quaint traditions, but the members I have met over the years {mostly in Manhattan and in rural Puerto Rico, and hailing from Utah or other Latin countries, not locals} have been universally very nice people. In the little towns they proselytize in here in PR, they don't seem to get much traction at all, but I have never heard anyone here {in 30 years} disrespect them or their religion, and a major reason is because they very much respect the local culture and they speak the language correctly and fluently, and they are seen as humble and honest, important qualities here. I am very sure that the new ambassador will certainly be an enormous asset to US interests. He won't need any time at all to be very Chinese, except maybe for the official drinking. It's too bad he isn't heading the Fed or Treasury, though. We need to send an envoy to the economic realms and not just the Middle Kingdom.

I don't think Hunstman needed that much persuasion to take the position.

The conventional wisdom is that Obama will win reelection in 2012. The economy would have to continue to deterioriate for him to lose. (I suppose this is arguable but let's go with it for now)

Huntsman had pledged to not run for reelection as governor, and wouldn't want to run for president against Obama in 2012. He's clearly very talented and a good fit for the job. I say this as a very liberal Utahn. This beefs up his foreign policy credentials massively if he wants a run in 2016.

This appointment is good for our country, and good for our relations with China, and good for Obama, but not necessarily good for the democrats in 2016.

And this is absolutely TERRIBLE for Utahns who are now stuck with Herbert as governor.

a good political move by Obama.  but don't expect too much political goodwill from Mormons.  this is the first administration in 60+ years not to have a Mormon Cabinet member.  

They must have also had good enough intelligence to sense that Huntsman was bored at his current gig.

Surely Huntsman reached out to Obama in some way first.  What he gets out of it is 8000 miles between himself and the Republican creepshow of Rush, Cheney, Steele, and Limbaugh, so that in 2016 or whenever there is less of the shit sticking to him.

Presumably this is not another Judd Gregg-style kamikaze- or sabotage mission.

Fantastic article and comments. It's a great appointment and I'm just happy to see someone appointed to the China ambassadorship who has good experience and some solid knowledge of Chinese culture. This is high praise from a former Clinton NSC director:

“This is a very important relationship and I think that Jon Huntsman is about as good a nominee as one could ask for,” said Kenneth Lieberthal, senior director for Asia on the National Security Council for Democratic President Bill Clinton and now a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

could be viewed in a similar political light, no?  It seems to have energized moderate to liberal Catholics to defend Obama in the face of criticism from the conservative bishops. Firming up support in this portion of the electorate could be of great help in the upcoming months, particularly in fights on health care and overall economic policy.

After seeing President Obama's speech at Notre Dame, of course this was act one of nominee approval theatre. Should have seen that coming!

One thing I don’t understand is this 2016 talk. Perhaps I’m missing something but doesn’t this mean that Mr. Huntsman will be spending a lot of time in Beijing.  As in Beijing, China, as in the country that is on the other side of the world from the United States?  How exactly is that a great launching pad for a presidential campaign?  Americans, traditionally, don’t care about what happens in other countries for the most part.  And even if some Americans do, you better believe that the MSM doesn’t.  I would wager that Mr. Huntsman is about to step into a deep political black hole.

Besides all that, is Huntsman’s Mormon faith going to automatically be more tolerable in 2016, to the right-wing evangelical Christians who hold considerable sway in the GOP?  Or how about his pro-civil union stance, the same stance that recently got him disinvited from conservative gatherings across the country?  As has been noted, Romney gave the RR everything they wanted and still lost their votes to Huckabee and the reanimated corpse of Fred Thompson.  Give the RR any conservative alternative and they’ll go with it over a Mormon candidate.

Personally, Huntsman seems like a really decent guy but I think the very worst thing he can do for his political future is take this ambassadorship.  If Romney can hope to run in 2012 as a one-term Governor out of office for 6 years, then Huntsman can do the same in 2016 as a two-term Governor out of office for 4.  It’s almost like he’s throwing away four whole years to bolster his political credentials.  And now that he’s already become someone of note on the national scene, at least among political junkies…it leads one to believe that the man is sick of electoral politics altogether.

No, this is all about 2016, not 2012.  Obama is doing this precisely as a favor to his party.  After all, if the economy is better in November 2012 than it was in November 2008, no one can stop Obama.  If it’s not, well, most likely no one can save him.

And in 2016, it’s not going to be 73-year old Biden or 69-year old Hillary as the Democrats standard bearer.  I’d sooner bet that it would be someone like Montana Gov. Brian Switzer or Virginia Sen. Mark Warner.  As a consequence of winning so many state-wide elections in the last several years, the Democrats have a fairly deep bench.

....if Romney is rejected in the primaries again.

Obama's courtship of Mormons may also help with another fight: the Church of LDS lent a lot of support to Proposition 8 in California. If substantial numbers of its members start to break Democratic, future mischief of that sort will be harder to make.

One thing I don’t understand is this 2016 talk. Perhaps I’m missing something but doesn’t this mean that Mr. Huntsman will be spending a lot of time in Beijing.  As in Beijing, China, as in the country that is on the other side of the world from the United States? How exactly is that a great launching pad for a presidential campaign?

It gives him valuable foreign policy experience. George H. W. Bush was envoy to China and went on to become VP and President.

This looks more like a prelude to a party switch to me. If I was a young, ambitious pol who was slowly being ousted by his own (radicalized) party, and saw that the Other Team was the only 'way to power,' I think going away (while 'serving' the Other Team) before a 'return' would be the perfect way to switch parties, versus, say, an instant-switcheroo like Specter's.

This gives Huntsman the power to reinvent himself, while severing ties with the Utah GOP as well as some of the more familial ties to the GOP.

Despite their shared religion, Huntsman and Romney are very different kinds of men.  To my somewhat jaded eyes Huntsman's a far less creepy variety of LDS patriarch (I'm not sure he's ever been a bishop; bishop-ness revolves throughout the squarer male LDS population).  He's way brighter and more creative than Romney, though Mitt sets a pretty low bar. 

Huntsman's also a businessman, not the usual Utah good ol' boy but a practical, pragmatic executive; bit contrast with Romney, who inherited his life and just didn't know how to handle himself.

@John, thanks for the sympathy.  I was blindsided but not that surprised by the appointment, and mostly dismayed by his replacement.  But if Obama's plan is to radicalize the right, our new far-right governor might just be the catalyst to push Utahns back to their community-oriented Democratic inclinations.  Jim Matheson, who's almost but not quite a Blue Dog, is said to be considering a run.  He's well respected in the state, and even my quite conservative boss says he'd vote for him over any of the potential Republican candidates out there right now.