Huntsman Strategist: Palin, Limbaugh Will Be Downfall GOP
Another self-proclaimed moderate Republican attacked talk radio show host Rush Limbaugh and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin recently.
John Weaver, who advised Utah Governor Jon Huntsman and was for years a close adviser to Sen. John McCain, told Byron York that “[i]f it’s 2012 and our party is defined by Palin and Limbaugh and Cheney, then we’re headed for a blowout. That’s just the truth.”
He also said that Huntsman truly considered running for president in 2012. “He had not made a decision to run for president, but he had made a decision to prepare to run. We were probably a month away from announcing the formation of a political action committee, so we were pretty far down the road.”
Although that last tidbit certainly is interesting – why would a man who wants challenge President Obama three years from now agree to serve as his ambassador to China? – I think it more important to focus on his blasting of Palin and Limbaugh.
Weaver basically repeats what many others, many other moderate Republicans, have also said in recent months. The GOP has to moderate, modernize, and reach out to Independents. It needs moderate Republicans, Rockefeller Republicans if you will, to seize power and to lead the party back to prominence and majority status.
Although I think Weaver certainly is right that Republicans are wise to have a lot of prominent moderate conservatives in the party, he is wrong about ‘moderates’ being the only way for the party to make a comeback. Arlen Specter can never beat Obama in a presidential election. If people can choose between ‘Obama-light’ and the real deal, they’ll go for the latter, and rightly so.
The ‘moderation’ the GOP has to aim for is not calling yourself a Republican but voting very liberal on issues related to the economy. No, the party has to come up with a candidate who has a clear vision, who is no extremist, who speaks and acts moderately – not a firebrand like Limbaugh – but who adheres to traditional conservative values nonetheless and who is able to articulate them clearly to voters.
Can Limbaugh be that person? No, never. But Palin? Possibly, yes. She still has a long way to go, she has to study and learn a lot still, but she could be that candidate. More so than Weaver’s boss, at least.
“why would a man who wants challenge President Obama three years from now agree to serve as his ambassador to China?”
Maybe because approving of civil unions for gay people means you fail the purity test some Palin supporters impose. The mormonism might be a problem too, outside of Utah. He is a conservative on guns and abortions, however.
“Can Limbaugh be that person? No, never. But Palin? Possibly, yes. She still has a long way to go, she has to study and learn a lot still, but she could be that candidate. More so than Weaver’s boss, at least.”
Are you saying that Palin would be a more appropriate, conservative candidate than Huntsman?
“He has overseen large tax cuts and has advocated reorganizing the way that services are distributed so that the government will not become overwhelmed by the state’s fast growing population. Huntsman would like to expand health-care, mainly through the private sector, by using tax breaks and negotiation to keep prices down. He also advocates encouraging people with insurance to use it as preventive care.”
He was also re-elected at 77 %, and served under three presidents. Face it, the party might have strayed from him rather than vice versa. That, or he has no hope for 2012 and want to strengthen himself for 2016. Now Obama has an LDS politician close to him, which the mormons in the midwest might appreciate after Steele’s careless remark about Romney’s problems, while the GOP lost a 2012 contender that was ideologically acceptable to the base and had a temperament that could have attracted independents. I sometimes feel that Obama is a bit too sly for comfort.
Um, Mormons are maybe 1% of the population in the midwest.
I also think you have a very shallow understanding of who Mormons are and how they think and vote on various issues. It is worth remembering that of the 2 Mormons in the Senate include both a staunch conservative (Orrin Hatch) and the very over-the-top liberal majority leader, Harry Reid.
Weaver worked on the McCain campaign until 2007, and was a former, and probably still, democrat. McCain always included Huntsman in his list of republican leaders, although most people had never heard of him.
From people I know in Utah, Huntsman has been steadily moving to the left over the last 6 months, and has lost support of most of his republican base.
The fact that he’d take a position with the 0bama administration says a lot about him, dessentially, that he is another McCain type republican, spends so much time reaching across the aisle that he can’t figure out what side of the aisle he’s supposed to be on. If that is the type of candidate Weaver thinks that the GOP needs, all he has to do as look at 2008, McCain was the ultimate candidate in Weaver’s view, how did that work out?
You may as well add Weaver’s to the long list of “elites” who few people in fly over country have ever heard of, and could care less that they say or think. If Weaver and Huntsman actually thought they stood a chance against Palin in the primaries, they are delusional.
“Um, Mormons are maybe 1% of the population in the midwest.”
I must be unaware of what counts as the Midwest – I thought the states shown in blue here counted as the midwest: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0c/Latter-day_Saint_Membership_per_capita.PNG
Anyway, mormonism is most prominent in Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Hawaii, at least by 2007.
“I also think you have a very shallow understanding of who Mormons are and how they think and vote on various issues. ”
I just considered it probable that when Huckabee is baiting anti-mormon bigotry and Steele suggests there might be credence to the idea that the GOP likes mormon votes but can’t consider them appropriate for presidential candidacy, Obama’s move couldn’t hurt.
palin is the best shot the republicans have of not only winning the race, but actually changing the way things work in washington. not only are the dems. scared of her, but also repubs. who have lost their scruples and like it that way.
dennisintn
I doubt that Obama is doing this to win over Mormons in the midwest, nor did he pick the governor of Utah to win votes in the governor’s home state. Obama is looking to solidify his wins in Nevada (6.72% Mormons), Colorado (2.75% Mormons) and New Mexico (3.25% Mormons) by getting moderate Mormons that voted for McCain to cross over and vote for him in 2012. And with McCain gone from the ticket, I bet they are looking to flip Arizona (5.81% Mormons) in 2012.
The republicans won’t be ready for Huntsman in 2012, they might be in 2016. Huntsman’s biggest worry would be Romney winning the republican primary in 2012 and then losing the election.
Btw, funny labeling the conservative ’staunch’ and the liberal ‘over-the-top’.
The thing is that she ranks poorly among republicans and worse among independents (without which no republican or democrat could be elected).
I agree with you, Dennis. Sarah Palin comes closest to being the kind of person and politician I would like to see in Washington. Sure would like to see her clean things up.
The conservative in this case (Hatch) is mostly known for being terminally boring and conventional.
The liberal in this case (Reid) is most recently known for trying to emulate the extremist rhetoric of moveon.org.
The descriptions are accurate, PJ.
Hey folks,
Just a little bit of common sense in analysing the current political issues. I am not a Sarah Palin fan, but I truly admire her than any other male republican politicians, She has more balls and guts than any other male republicans and conservatives. Why?? The answer is simple. SHE DONT FLIP-FLOPPED, and she can stand by her own moral convictions, win or lose… Romney, Ginrich and Huntsman, how many times they flip-flopped?? Talking about the continuous bashing and tearing down of Sarah Palin from both left and right? What does this means?? Every highly common sense americans know the answer: THAT SHE IS STRONG FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH. Mathematically speaking, if a certain amount is too small, it would be ignored. However, if the amount differential is so huge, it will be highly noticed. Sarah Palin is HUGE, and that is why both left and right who are insecured of her are trying their best to tear her down but sad to say they will all fail!! The more these pundits try to tear down Palin, the more she gots sympathy, and the more her legions of supporters are increasing. BOTH CARTER AND REAGAN ERA WILL AGAIN HAPPEN…history repeats itself!!
I love your last phrase, raymond. You just hit the target!!! HISTORY WILL AGAIN REPEATS ITSELF… THERE WILL BE SECOND CARTER AND REAGAN ERA??? DOES THIS MEANS THAT CARTER=OBAMA, AND REAGAN=PALIN…WOW!! SOUNDS INTERESTING TO ME, BRO!!
I voted for McCain. I appreciate the ability to reach across the aisle. I felt Sen. McCain had a history of wanting to DO SOMETHING about certain difficult issues (i.e. immigration) and not just shout from the moral high ground. He is conservative, frankly more conservative than I am.
Just as the Dems had/have to get over their FDR/Kennedy obsession the Republicans have to get over their Reagan obsession.
You had me until “But Palin? Possibly, yes.” Please! Even people in her own state don’t like her anymore! She appeals only to the far right of the spectrum. That is very, very unlikely to change, and that won’t win national elections. She needs to do a lot more than “study and learn” to be a viable candidate.
Palin is the best bet for the Republicans? You expect her to “clean-up” Washington? Right, she has allready been proven to be as corrupt and venal as the rest of the crooked Republicans in AK, plus she’s dumb as a post. Good luck running with her. I suggest Palin/Wurzelbach in 2012. They represent the loony right that is running the GOP right now.
She’s not dumb – after all, haven’t there been times when you’ve come across the wrong way or happened to not mesh perfectly with someone due to your mannerisms? If not, I can assure you that happens often, and that is why I generally try to avoid paying attention to the “character” of a politician because that is something you should try and infer from their words and their campaigning. I mean, Palin has problems, that much is evident when looking at her many lies, her campaigning against Obama and her poor show when it comes to some issues. But calling her dumb makes as much sense as talking about how “starbursts” shoot out from the screen when you see her on TV.