I suppose this could theoretically work for Jon Huntsman — if Ron Paul (and his Mini-Me, Gary Johnson) hadn’t already staked out the small-government-means-killing-fewer-brown-people territory long before Huntsman sauntered in, and done so in a much more principled and absolutist way, based on an actual ideology that a certain subset of right-wingers actually share:
Huntsman said Obama’s expected plan to bring home 10,000 troops this year and all 30,000 surge troops by the end of 2012 is “a little slow and a little cautious.”
“I think over the next year there’s room to draw down more… More than 10,000 over the next year,” Huntsman said on “GMA” this morning. “I think we have to see — nine years and 50 days into this conflict, the money that has been spent on both conflicts, well over $1 trillion, I think we have to say, ‘What have we accomplished in Afghanistan?'”
Spencer Ackerman, alas, really doesn’t get it, because he really doesn’t understand Republicans very well:
People are focusing on the fact that Huntsman won’t win. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is the fact that he can easily shift the Overton Window on security questions. The structural dynamic of the GOP race is that it’s the most foreign-policy starved that the party’s fielded in a generation. Huntsman’s ambassadorial experience might not grant him that much electorally, but for the purposes of the other candidates, it means Huntsman is the yardstick by which the press will measure the gravity of their foreign policy pronouncements….
The rest of the GOP field, at some point, will have to grapple with his foreign-policy positions. Because they’re going to be asked about them, and their own will be judged against his, again and again and again.
Nonsense.
Sure, the mainstream press may say that Attention Must Be Paid to what press darling Huntsman says about foreign policy because he has a tiny dollop of foreign-policy experience. But the first audience before whom this Huntsman-as-semi-expert case will be made is going to respond, “Really? We should listen to that guy? Says who?”
Since when have Republicans given a crap whether someone has anything resembling expertise, as you and I (and Spencer Ackerman) understand it? Let me list all of the GOP’s presidential nominees since 1980: Reagan, Poppy Bush, Dole, Shrub Bush, McCain. Of those, which two do Republicans respect the most on foreign policy? In fact, which two are regarded as war heroes? Do I have to answer that? Isn’t it the two who never fought in a war?
To Republicans, real “expertise” means agreeing with conservative dogma. Anyone can be an expert. Sarah Palin. Joe the Plumber. Jonathan Krohn.
If some smartypants non-Fox debate moderator tries to use this line on the rest of the GOP field — “Hey, that sexy motorcycle guy actually has foreign policy experience, so shouldn’t you be listening to him on Afghanistan?” — the GOP base is going to recoil in disgust and take it out on Huntsman as well. And Huntsman’s continued basement ranking in GOP polls (and primaries) will take care of the rest. So, Spencer, trust me: the Overton window will not be moved by Easy Rider.
(X-posted at NMMNB).
c u n d gulag
Doesn’t he realize that before he’s the Presidential candidate, he has to go through, and win, the primaries?
Why is he trying to sound reasonable?
Reasonable is about as appealing to Republicans as tofu is to a wolf.
(Comment X-posted at NMMNB) :-)
andy
Well, yeah. Teabaggers don’t give a shit about the details and they have pushed their way into the GOP from the county level. Anyone who suggests they take a second to think about the details isn’t going to move an inch.
Also too, Easy Rider is the perfect Huntsman tag.
MattF
In fact, expertise is regarded as a bad sign. Too much contact with reality.
And, not to put too fine a point on it, Huntsman actually worked for Obama and is, therefore, disqualified. Period.
cleek
he has quite a bit more than a tiny dollop. it’s all he’s got, but he’s got quite a bit of it.
mk387
30% reduction in forces is not enough? Right. Let’s see what the polls say for the rest of Americans outside of the professional Left & Right.
cat48
Pawlenty has decided Obama is pulling out too rapidly! He plans to double down & be the new tough kid on the block, compared to wimps that were in the debate. You know, to be different & strong! I read this yesterday…..
As for Easy Rider, he may beat Romney in New Hampshire. Not sure that sweet guy thing will sell in SC the next state up! They do not like Obama here in SC, except for hippies like me & all us browns.
Han's Solo
I agree with everything you say on this.
I can’t help notice, however, that you don’t seem to disagree with Huntsman’s statement that we can pull out faster. Neither do I.
Of course, given Huntsman’s numerous offspring, I’m guessing that if there is one thing Huntsman really sucks at, it is pulling out.
scott
I think your post is right in that Huntsman won’t go anywhere with primary voters and won’t get the nomination. But the media love this guy because he’s the most non-crazy Republican, and I think Ackerman’s point is that it would be helpful to have extensive media coverage of a Republican criticizing the costs of our insanely interventionist foreign policy. Because that’s how change happens now. The media don’t care what liberals think but actually pay attention when Serious Adult Republicans make similar arguments. The only problem, as you suggest, is that Huntsman will probably flame out so quickly that the media attention won’t last very long, which is a pity, since it would be nice if his criticisms on this issue got a wider airing.
Folderol & Ephemera
The point is that Huntsman will move the so-called “Overton Window” for the mainstream press, not the GOP base. We’re talking Brooks and
BroderDouthat, Will and Rubin, Friedman and Dowd.Attackerman’s not saying that the former Ambassador to China’s policy speeches will make any real impact on people who think that the voices in Michele Bachmann’s head would serve her well as our next Commander-in-Chief. He’s saying that the more that Huntsman speaks out against foreign intervention, the less chance there will be for major op-eds advocating an immediate invasion of Iran.
someguy
The Huntsman-love is touching as is the media fawning and their clear hopes that he runs as the alt.Republican-We-Can-Like. Sure, he’s more moderate than the rest of the field and he sounds somewhat reasonable… but that’s like being the least bloodthirsty guy in Ghengis’ Horde. It doesn’t mean much. At the end of the day I’d rather see a full blown crazy Republican who is easy to beat, than a soft-talking assclown Republican who makes nice-nice in front of the camera. They’re all monsters and they don’t change their spots. Don’t be suckered if he sounds half reasonable. It’s just an act, he’s just trying to distance himself from Larry, Moe and Curly in the rest of the Republican field.
Whereas if Ackerman is right, and Huntsman talks about single payer or turning troops into social workers in blighted neighborhoods or whatever, it will make it much more likely to happen. That’s a great theory but it only works if you really believe words have some real force when you speak them to a cult.
taylormattd
I posted this yesterday, but I really can’t get enough of it: http://www.jonhuntsman.com/
jibeaux
@9 — why can’t we do the linky thing to the people anymore FYWP?
I think that’s a good interpretation, but I think the odds that Krauthammer’s columns are going to be changed by a former Obama ambassador are long.
SteveM
I literally applauded in my apartment during the NH debate when Ron Paul started talking about getting the hell out of Afghanistan as quickly as humanly possible, after saying he wouldn’t consult the military leaders because, screw it, he’d be the commander-in-chief.
Crazy as a loon, that Ron Paul, but on that he’s 100% right.
SteveM
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
What scott #8 and Folderol & Ephemera #9 said.
The Overton Window isn’t an actual physical object which can be hoarded by one party. It is a collective notion of what we can talk about and still be considered serious people (DFH’s need not apply, sorry). As such everybody with a microphone contributes to it, the GOP, the press, the Dems. Huntsman may not budge the OW on the GOP side, but he may have an effect on the press and the Dems.
At this point in our history of the military-industrial complex, I’m not going to throw rocks at anybody who stands up and says “Is it just me, or does it seem like we have too much war around here?”. I’ll throw rocks at them for other things, but not for that.
trollhattan
Ambassador to China versus pizza guy. In the Republican hive mind, pizza guy has all the advantages.
jnfr
The media does love their Republican Daddies.
HumboldtBlue
Hopefully this exposure will see Steve become a regular FP’er. You’re still infuriating, but still damn good.
Chris
DING DING DING DING DING!!
Nylund
The unifying theory of all GOP policy is simply, “Whatever Obama is doing, it is wrong.”
For the primaries, it doesn’t really matter if a candidate argues that Obama is pulling out troops too quickly or too slowly. The GOP primary voters will reward whichever candidate can make Obama sound the most wrong. It doesn’t matter which side they attack from. All that matters is convincing the GOP base that you disagree with Obama more than anyone else. The actual nature of the disagreement is of secondary importance.
amk
The media needs its race spicer for more eye balls. huntsman it is this week. Just watch the media when tundra twit returns from her hibernation.
Bulworth
We’re fighten em over there so we don’t have to fight em over here…
War On Terrorism!
Appeasement!
Don’t Cut and Run!
SteveM
Dems need not apply, unless they’re punching hippies.
John
Not that I really disagree with your larger point, but…
This seems odd to me. If you listed those people to me and said “Which two are regarded [by Republicans] as war heroes?” I would immediately go with Dole and McCain. I assume you’re going with Reagan and Dubya. But I’ve never seen Republicans particularly insist on either of them as war heroes. Both were given a pass by Republicans for very dubious service, and both lied and exaggerated the extent of their service, but I don’t think any Republican would try to claim that they were bigger war heroes than Dole or McCain, both of whom based much of their political narrative on their war hero status. (Poppy is somewhere in the middle – legitimate war-time service, perhaps to the “war hero” level, but not a very important part of his public persona).
daveNYC
What’s going to happen is that Huntsman will talk non-crazy, the village will love him, and eventually he’ll be tossed out of the primary because non-crazy doesn’t cut it. At that point, the village will start fluffing the GOP frontrunner while ascribing to them all of Huntsman’s non-crazy ideas. So what we’ll end up with is something like Bachman as the nominee, but somehow her policies will be influenced and improved by Huntsman’s existance in the early race and the actual level of crazy in her policies will be ignored.
Pococurante
Explain please. By all accounts he’s actually been a moderate and effective governor. I don’t see the comparison to Ron (“Libertarian until it hurts my medical practice”) Paul.
Pococurante
@13
I’d like to see this unpacked as well.
What you’re proposing is certainly want the Taliban was hoping to hear too. I remember 1986 and its aftermath quite well.
I’m curious to hear what you think happens with a divided Afghanistan, and the competition over the factions by India and Pakistan, once we magically poof out of there overnight.
SteveM
On Gary Johnson, here ya go:
http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/23/whos-the-better-libertarian-st
http://www.thelibertarianpatriot.com/2011/06/rolling-stone-meet-gary-johnson-gops.html
http://newmexicoindependent.com/47141/gary-johnson-bids-for-libertarian-support
SteveM
Yeah, the alternative, endless war, is working out so much better for us, isn’t it?
Georgia Pig
Obama will wipe the floor with Huntsman if Huntsman goes this route. Obama was Huntsman’s fucking boss and has OBL’s pelt on the wall, so Huntsman’s “foreign policy cred” is laughable. Afghanistan is not a good issue for Huntsman as long as Obama looks like he is proceeding with a pullout, even if slowly. With that backdrop, Huntsman risks looking petty sniping at the size and pace of the drawdown. Pawlenty has little credibility on foreign policy, but at least his approach is a time-tested standard Republican tactic. Romney’s approach is much smarter, because Obama is more vulnerable on economics and is hamstrung by the ability of Republicans in Congress to block the Democrats from doing anything about jobs. On Afghanistan, Obama has greater control of the agenda.
Ghanima Atreides
so true. So you aren’t a libertarian-hugger like the rest of the frontpagers here?
Pococurante
@ 28
Ok I read them. They support my assertion. Johnson was an effective and popular two-term governor. Paul is a hypocritical propagandist.
Libertarians are free to project whatever rohrshach on him they want, but in the man’s own words he’s closer to lower-case ‘L’ liberal. Which makes him a Republican moderate, shades of the pre-vice president GHW Bush.
How does that make him a “mini-me” of Paul, who has done exactly what as a civil servant?
@ 29
Ah my apologies. I wasn’t aware we now have a resident FP firebagger whose opinions are so well-reasoned, articulate, and evidence-based.
Please disregard my above question, and carry on.
I suppose M_C/Ghanima will be our next FP.
Lovely.
SteveM
I’m only a (very temporary) front-pager. And I have no patience for libertarians. Legalized meth and child labor is not my idea of a paradise.
cat48
Speaking of moving the Overton window, Tamron Hall, msnbc seriously stated last hour that Obama was AntiWar! That’s too funny. Frankly, I think he’s a bit blood thirsty myself. We must not let him be defined as AntiWar by the Media because this is not the first time I’ve heard that on msnbc.
Pococurante
@ 33
I don’t either.
I do, however, like folks who can back their opinions.
Timothy Trollenschlongen (formerly Tim, Interrupted)
Obots hate Huntsman of course, but I think it may be primarily because he is just as sleek, sharp, and sexah as Barry but seems more daddy-like than O, and thus will pull a lot of the sleek/sharp/sexah/daddy-lover vote into the Repuke column.
If we’re going to be lied to and fucked over, it might as well be by a sleek/sharp/sexah/daddy who doesn’t claim to be a Progressive.
General Stuck
This is true, but it is also largely irrelevant within the confines of our current political matrix. There are roughly 40 to 45 percent of republicans that would vote for a slug, if it had a R painted on it. They start running into trouble with the 10 to 20 twenty percent of the electorate that are not ideologues, whereas basic qualification goes some beyond espousing right wing dogma.
And I would argue that number is closer to 20 percent, when you start adding in all the groups of voters the wingers xenophobe division has been busy alienating. At least for the general election.
There has been a significant shift in recent poll internals, from my readings of them, that is unmistakable in a tendency of a degree of voters now having fundamental doubts on the credibility and competency of the GOP to govern. Which actually is important to many true swing voters, who may absorb enough of these vibes they are getting through the media GOP fluff filter.
I think there is a limit to the crazy, and especially the more shameless and obvious, wingnut lawmakers catering a little too boldly for the rich, and even more importantly, their assault on things link medicare. They will likely keep the certain 40 to 45 percent vote, but they cannot win with that alone.
Catsy
@Pococurante:
I’m curious why anyone thinks that becomes any more or less likely depending on whether we stay there six more months or six more years.
We are not going to turn Afghanistan into Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy. We’ll be lucky if what little progress we’ve made doesn’t evaporate within weeks of our leaving, regardless of when that is.
The Taliban are bad men who hate us. We get that. But OBL is dead and al Qaeda is in disarray. We’ve got no reason to be there that doesn’t equally justify camping out in the backyard of any other third-world shithole where bad men who hate us can be found.
SteveM
Except he isn’t. He’s dull as dishwater.
Breeding like rabbits for religious reasons, whether Mormon, Catholic, or “Quiverfull” Evangelical, sure makes you look like a “daddy,” but not like a GOP Daddy or a Who’s Your Daddy? daddy.
Maybe, but we’ll never know, because he won’t win a single Republican delegate.
Pococurante
@ 38
Timing?
1) What was the state of Afghani police and military ten years ago.
2) What was it nine years ago.
3) What is it now.
Answer those three questions to your satisfaction, and then justify to yourself why a return to pre-2011 is the moral and ethical choice.
Hint, as SteveM is too vacuous to explain it:
1) Non-existent. It was an extremist Taliban-dominated society where women were burned alive for reading a book, and men raped and skinned for not growing their sideburns.
Is this neocon propaganda? Perhaps. Justify your position.
2) Roughly 15,000. Bonus points if you understand what happened next. Another hint: some dumbass, sounding like SteveM, decided to rotate troops out of Afganistan.
Is this neocon propaganda? Perhaps. Justify your position.
3) Roughly 300,000. I assume you can do the math. We really are very close. Since 2009 we actually… actually… prepared a government that could defend itself. Unlike the Soviets in 1986. Unlike the USA in 1986. Unlike GW Bush seven years ago.
Again, justify your position.
Bullshit slogans that belong to the Teatard movement, like “Our eternal war is not working so well” and “Global Warming, God loves me too much to make it rain until I die” is not critical thinking.
I want us out of there too. But please have the sense to realize that leaving now before the country is able to police itself is, um… not stupid… um, not wrong…
… ah yes, it is profoundly evil and immoral. Howdy Pol Pot.
Need a soundbite for your brain?
Fine: We broke it. Three times since Reagan. And some here want a fourth round. For the children.
Pakistan will continue to destabilize and seize control of the Northern half. India will continue to do the same for the South. Iran will continue to destabilize all the above.
Guess which countries are, or will soon be, nuclear powers.
Guess which countries support clandestine terrorism.
Guess which countries can, and could, use global law to proxy destabilization in the rest of the world.
“Attackerman is wrong”. I have my issues with the guy’s opinions, and we’ve clashed more than a few times. But at least he evaluates evidence on the ground first.
SteveM, you have a budding career at FDL. Twist the dial a bit and Fox News would love you just as much. Thank G-d you’re temporary. We’d do just as well to funnel the comments sections from the NYT, WP, and WSJ.
Ghanima Atreides
Poc
guess you missed EDK the Token Rightwing Pundit’s epic fp flameout on his mancrush GaJo. He was also an AGW denialist, a union basher like all libertarians, a child labor advocate, a tenther, and a nominal (read liar) pro-choicer that voted an abortion-restriction law into reality.
I personally think its great to have a frontpager that is apparently immune to the Libertarian Reacharound….you know, where they headfake civil rights to diddle you from the front while sodomizing you with the invisible fist of the free market from behind?
Pococurante
@ 41
I don’t always agree with Kain. In fact I often do not.
But I know he is a fair person who admits his faults, doesn’t pretend his opinion of the day is superior to all other people, and he does good journalism.
E.D. has chosen to grow, evolve, and welcome more information. On that count alone he is a mensch whom I can respect.
You don’t qualify on any point. You are someone who thinks we are here to be your personal sounding board and behavioral therapist.
That makes you a dishonest consumer. Which assumes of course you are mature. It is always possible you’re just a kid who can’t push past insecurity.
You act that you have no obligation to publicly acknowledge when a new viewpoint meant something of value to you.
You’ve chosen to be a leech.
You steal what is being freely given.
When you could choose to be a grown-up who genuinely values new viewpoints.
That you clearly need intervention and help just makes our burden that much harder.
You could always change your approach.
But that would mean you admit it is time to evolve to the next level.
Dilemma. Grow. Or whine.
Ghanima Atreides
Kain is a liar that headfaked Cole and the juicers for the page clicks.
Cole is a hypocrite while he blogrolls the LoOG.
Ghanima Atreides
Poc
the same. the same. the same.
10 years ago A-stan was 99% muslim, to day A-stan is 99% muslim.
10 years a go the US was negotiating with the Taliban.
Today the US is negotiating with the Taliban.
Spencer Ackerman
Hmm. OK, maybe. I was making a point about the prism of media coverage — hence the Overton Window stuff — for the primaries, in which elite opinion really does matter. But not really the hill I’m looking to die on…
scott
Don’t worry, SA. Steve posted something today where he actually observes the OW in action, the media paying respectful attention to Huntsman’s and Romney’s openness to further troop withdrawals. The point was correctly made, and your hill is safe, without your getting a scratch.